Neg Fuel Standards

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008 LCFS NEG
LCFS NEG INDEX

lcfs neg index..................................................................................................................................................................1
lcfs cannot solve – oil shock...........................................................................................................................................3
lcfs cannot solve – data Burden......................................................................................................................................4
lcfs cannot solve – companies move...............................................................................................................................5
lcfs cannot solve- emissions............................................................................................................................................6
lcfs cannot solve – no infrastructure.............................................................................................................................10
lcfs cannot solve– increases food prices.......................................................................................................................11
lcfs cannot solve – innovation impossible....................................................................................................................12
lcfs cannot solve – other nations overwhelm c02.........................................................................................................13
lcfs cannot solve – mid-east oil.....................................................................................................................................14
lcfs cannot solve – mid-east oil ....................................................................................................................................15
cellulosic bad - long time frame....................................................................................................................................16
cellulosic bad - emissions.............................................................................................................................................17
cellulosic bad – biodiversity.........................................................................................................................................18
cellulosic bad – not enough fuel...................................................................................................................................19
cellulosic bad – deforestation........................................................................................................................................20
corn good – at: food prices............................................................................................................................................21
biofuels do not cause food price hikes..........................................................................................................................22
biofuels do not cause food price hikes..........................................................................................................................23
no impact food prices....................................................................................................................................................24
corn causes gm Crops...................................................................................................................................................25
corn declining now........................................................................................................................................................26
no peak oil – less demand.............................................................................................................................................27
no peak oil – myth.........................................................................................................................................................28
no peak oil – reserves....................................................................................................................................................29
no peak oil - reserves....................................................................................................................................................30
no peak oil - reserves....................................................................................................................................................31
no peak oil – deep water solves....................................................................................................................................32
no peak oil – saudi arabia will solve.............................................................................................................................33
no peak oil – market self correcting..............................................................................................................................34
no peak oil - temporary.................................................................................................................................................37
no peak oil – reserves....................................................................................................................................................38
no peak oil – at: hurts the economy..............................................................................................................................39
no peak oil – at: china war............................................................................................................................................40
no peak oil – at: china impacts......................................................................................................................................41
no peak oil – long time frame.......................................................................................................................................42
oil not bad – foreign policy remains flexible................................................................................................................43
anwr solves oil dependence...........................................................................................................................................44
anwr solves oil dependence...........................................................................................................................................45
link lcfs: increases natural gas use................................................................................................................................46
link lcfs: spending.........................................................................................................................................................47
carbon tax cp - solvency................................................................................................................................................48
states cp – solve lcfs......................................................................................................................................................49
states cp – solves modeling...........................................................................................................................................50
winning war on terror now............................................................................................................................................54
Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

2
winning war on terror now............................................................................................................................................55

politics - energy reform partisan...................................................................................................................................56
politics – energy reform partisan...................................................................................................................................57
politics - lcfs partisan....................................................................................................................................................58
politics – corn ethanol unpopular..................................................................................................................................59
politics – lcfs bipartisan................................................................................................................................................60
politics – obama supports ethanol.................................................................................................................................61
politics – obama supports lcfs.......................................................................................................................................62
politics - democrats support lcfs...................................................................................................................................63
politics – mccain supports lcfs......................................................................................................................................64
politics – bipartisan rhetoric on lcfs hollow..................................................................................................................65
politics – lcfs popular with businesses..........................................................................................................................66
politics – lcfs unpopular with businesses......................................................................................................................67

3
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – OIL SHOCK

LCFS creates industry confusion that undermines alternative fuel production and will cause oil shocks.
Drevna, 2007 (Charlie, Executive Vice-President of National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, NPRA’s
Testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.060707.Drevna-testimony.pdf, June 7)
The proposed legislation seems to embrace the enthusiasm for a 35 billion gallon program shared by the
Administration and the Senate, although the draft does provide a longer, less frontloaded timeframe. However, by
placing an overlapping carbon limit on alternative fuels, the aperture through which industry must travel to comply
may be much too narrow. As a result, there is a fundamental tension between the yearly expansion of the alternative
fuels mandate in the AFP and the restraints placed on qualifying fuels under the LCFS. It would be very confusing
and difficult for industry to comply simultaneously with an increasing AFP and a decreasing LCFS. The impact on
obligated parties would be compliance strategies that could change frequently because the LCFS changes every year.
An obligated party would have to adjust compliance strategies annually. Therefore, interest in particular alternative
fuels may quickly wane, since formulations may qualify under LCFS for only a few years. Thus, the obligated party
would seek a different mix of alternative fuels for later years. This lack of stability would hinder the
commercialization of some alternative fuels. To the extent that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
exercises its authority to regulate some fuels based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, it alters the economics of
these fuels. To reconcile these provisions, EPA should be able to decrease the AFP mandate requirements by the
same volume of fuel rendered ineligible for satisfying the LCFS. Without this ability, the LCFS could unwittingly
disrupt fuel supply to consumers.

4
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – DATA BURDEN

LCFS is impossible to implement—the data burden is just too high.
Geesman 08 (John - Commissioner on the California Energy Commission in 2002. "Green Energy War: A former
California Energy Commissioner digests global climate and energy politics." May 1, 2008
http://greenenergywar.com/2008/05/01/biofuels-low-carbon-fuel-standard-to-the-rescue/)
As with many policy objectives in the Green Energy War, it is exponentially easier to advocate than to accomplish.
In the words of the California researchers, who advocated pushing forward: One major concern … is development
of appropriate frameworks for analyzing and regulating the land use impacts of fuel production. Current approaches
… are static, extremely simple, and based on old data. One possible solution would be to develop a meta-model that
links lifecycle assessment and macroeconomic models to predict indirect land-use changes … However, this seems a
daunting task, given the enormous data gaps, model uncertainty, deep uncertainties about future policies, prices and
technologies. In particular, this approach is likely to have very limited application in a regulatory context. Therefore,
better methods for the analysis and regulation of indirect land use change effects are required. Daunting data and
modeling challenges are a familiar presence on the climate front, but those in the trenches of the transition away
from petroleum dependence would do well to remember they have somewhat more simplistic, but no less valiant,
allies on the energy security and economic development fronts of the Green Energy War.

5
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – COMPANIES MOVE

Companies will respond to the plan by moving out of the country – this results in a shift to less efficient fuels
which increases CO2 emissions.
Koetzle, 05 (William Koetzle, Ph.D. Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research.
“IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper” http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-
boucher-white-paper/)
Emissions leakage occurs when GHG emissions shift or “leak” from one locality, state, region or nation to another
locality because of the presence of a GHG emissions reduction program (i.e. a cap or a tax) in the one area without a
corresponding program in the other. Emission leaks can occur when either a GHG reduction program in one locality
raises the cost of production (especially in the case of energy-intensive industries) vis-a-vis production in other
localities; or when a reduction program in one area increases the price of carbon-intensive fuels (i.e. coal, oil) thus
reducing the demand in that locality. This, however, has the net effect of lowering world prices thereby increasing
demand for these products in areas without a reduction effort.[15] The effect of leakage then can be either no net
reduction in GHG emissions or, possibly, an increase in net emissions if the economic activity moves to an area
with a more carbon-intensive fuel mix or uses energy in a less efficient manner. The problem of emission leakage is
a critical factor that must be considered when attempting to judge the appropriate roles of various levels of
government in a GHG reduction program. Local, State, regional, or even national efforts to reduce GHG could be
offset, or even surmounted if these efforts are undermined by leakage. Emissions leakage from the United States to
China, for example, is already occurring - even in the absence of a national GHG reduction program because of cost
of production differentials. Research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research “suggests that American
emissions of carbon dioxide in 2003 would have been 6% higher if the United States had manufactured the products
that it imported from China. Meanwhile, China’s 2003 emissions would have been 14% lower had it not produced
goods for the United States.”[16] Thus, because of the fuel mix of China (more heavily reliant upon coal) products
produced in China for export to the United States resulted in greater GHG emissions than had these same products
been produced in the United States. The authors of the study argue: “These results show the importance of world
trade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change.”

6
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE- EMISSIONS
Growing new biofuels trades off with wilderness and releases carbon into the atmosphere.
Pratt 2008 (Andrew Plemmons, Associate professor in Energy and Resources Group at the University of California
Berkely, “The Path to Better Biofuels, an Interview with Alex Farrell on the Latest Land Use Studies” Center for
American Progress, February 13)
The most important thing is to think about land. Using land to produce biofuels essentially competes with using land
for food production or keeping land in wilderness. We have three possible ways to use land: wilderness, fuel
production, and food production. The way we produce biofuels today, if you do one, you don’t really get a chance to
do the other. You have to account for wilderness–rainforests, or even grasslands here in the United States–because
these lands have a lot of stored carbon in them. So when you convert the wilderness–weather it’s grassland or
rainforest–into an agricultural operation of some sort, you release a lot of this carbon. Usually, you’re burning the
material on the surface, and turning over the soil so it gets oxidized. It’s the release of carbon dioxide from the
conversion of the wilderness to agricultural production that is the problem.
Ethanol only reduces GHG minimally – other environmental harms like pesticides and excess water use
outweigh.
Lieberman and Loris 08 (Ben and Nick, Senior Policy Analyst for The Heritage Foundation and Heritage scholar,
May 15, 2008, “Time to Repeal the Ethanol Mandate”,
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1925.cfm)
Ethanol was promoted in part for its claimed environmental benefits: lower pollution and reduced greenhouse gas
emissions relative to gasoline. That is why the growing chorus of environmentalist criticism of the mandate is
particularly noteworthy. Many environmental organizations have raised concerns about the increased inputs of
energy, pesticides, and fertilizer needed to grow more corn.[6] The same is true for the stress on water supplies,
especially now that corn production is being expanded in locales where rainfall is insufficient and irrigation is
needed.[7] Even land that is now protected under federal conservation programs may soon be cleared for corn.[8] In
addition, the facilities that turn corn into ethanol create emissions issues of their own. The goal of the ethanol
mandate was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but after taking into account the carbon dioxide emitted from
ethanol production, the reduction in emissions is modest.[9] These effects on the land, air, and water have already
raised serious concerns, and we are only one-quarter of the way toward the eventual 36 billion-gallon target. Clearly,
the food and fuel impacts cannot be justified by environmental benefits. Even worse is the turnabout on the major
environmental issue of the day: climate change. Proponents of ethanol and other biofuels claimed that they are
responsible for lower carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions than the gasoline they displace, but several
recent studies challenge this assertion and argue that biofuels increase such emissions.[10] Oxfam, an international
aid organization, argues that "large-scale growth in biofuels demand has pushed up food prices and so far there is
little evidence that it is reducing overall carbon emissions."[11]

7
LCFS increases total GHG emissions—more fuel will be burned overall so even if some of it is less carbon
intensive, the net effect is worse for warming.
Wolak 08 (Frank, Holbrook Working Professor of Commodity Price Studies in the Economics Department at
Stanford University and the Chairman of the Market Surveillance Committee of the California Independent System
Operator, May 2008, “Low Carbon Fuel Standards: Do They Really Work?”,
ftp://zia.stanford.edu/pub/papers/lcfs_wolak.pdf
The cost-effectiveness of the LCFS as a GHG-emissions reduction policy is reduced by the fact that it subsidizes the
production of corn-based ethanol and other fuels with GHG emissions contents below the standard. This subsidy has
an environmental cost because the consumption of biofuels also produces GHG emissions, just not at the same rate
per BTU of energy consumed as gasoline. Nevertheless, corn-based ethanol has the political benefit that it is
produced domestically. This tax and subsidy equivalence of the LCFS explains why it can lead to an increase in total
GHG emissions and why it is an extremely costly way to achieve a given reduction in total GHG emissions. There
are two ways to achieve compliance with the LCFS: reducing the production of high-GHG-emissions fuels or
increasing the production of low-GHG-emissions fuels. Depending on the relative prices of the two fuels, suppliers
may find it optimal to increase the production of both fuels to meet the standard in a way that increases total GHG
emissions. Although recent research demonstrates that a national LCFS is unlikely to lead to increased GHG
emissions, the average cost per ton of CO2 reduced is substantially higher than the average cost of a policy designed
to reduce total GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Specifically, this research estimates that the average
cost per ton of CO2 reduced under a 10 percent national LCFS is three to four times higher than the least-cost policy
for achieving the same national total CO2 emissions reduction. This research also finds that the lowest estimated
average cost per ton of CO2 reduced under a 10 percent national LCFS is higher than most estimates of the
environmental damage per ton of CO2 emitted, which implies that a 10 percent LCFS imposes more costs on
producers and consumers than the environmental damage it prevents.

8
LCFS doesn’t actually reduce GHG emissions – the standard will be relaxed through bureaucratic discretion.
ftp://zia.stanford.edu/pub/papers/lcfs_wolak.pdf )
The LCFS resembles another controversial intensity-based standard in the transportation sector – the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard. The CAFE standard imposes an upper bound on the sales weighted
average fuel economy in miles per gallon (mpg) of a manufacturer’s fleet of passenger cars or light trucks sold in the
U.S. The CAFE standard is an inefficient mechanism relative to a gasoline tax, for reducing gasoline consumption
for the same reasons that the LCFS is a costly way to reduce total GHG emissions. A number of CAFE standard
compliance issues have analogues for an LCFS, and these are likely to undermine significantly the effectiveness of
an LCFS at producing lower GHG emissions. The first compliance issue under the CAFE standard is the process for
determining the fuel economy of each vehicle sold by an automobile manufacturer. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) uses either test data provided by the manufacturer or obtains a vehicle and tests it in an
EPA facility to collect vehicle-level fuel economy data. The analogous issue for the LCFS is the process for
determining the GHG emissions intensity of a fuel. The full fuel cycle GHG emissions content of a fuel cannot be
determined by burning it in a test facility. This would only provide an estimate of the GHG emissions for the fuel at
the consumption stage. Estimates of the emissions produced in upstream production and extraction of the energy
resource, refining of the resource, and transport of the fuel to final consumers must all be compiled to compute the
full fuel cycle GHG emissions. Scientifically defensible differences in modeling assumptions can yield sizeable
differences in the GHG emissions estimates for each stage of the full fuel cycle. For example, there is considerable
scientific debate whether the full fuel cycle GHG emissions for corn-based ethanol are lower than those for gasoline.
However, because corn-based ethanol is the major domestically produced alternative transportation fuel, it is
difficult to see how a regulatory process subject to federal or state government oversight would produce a full fuel
cycle GHG emissions content greater than or equal to that of gasoline for the purposes of the LCFS, regardless of
the best available scientific evidence on this issue. The process of computing the rates used to convert other
greenhouse gases produced in the full fuel cycle into CO2 equivalents is also plagued by scientific uncertainty. For
each fuel, plausible differences in modeling assumptions will yield significantly different rates for converting each
GHG into a CO2-equivalent magnitude. All of these sources of uncertainty imply that determining the GHG
emissions rates for each fuel is likely to be an extremely contentious process subject to much more bureaucratic
discretion than the one used to determine the fuel economy of vehicles under a CAFE standard. The experience of the CAFE standard with dual-fuel vehicles is a prime example of how
bureaucratic discretion can effectively relax a standard. The fuel economy of a dual fuel vehicle that can burn gasoline or an alternative fuel is computed as the average of the fuel economy using
gasoline and an administratively determined fuel economy in gasoline-equivalent miles per gallon for the alternative fuel. This administrative mechanism combined with the assumption that the
dual-fuel vehicle will use the alternative fuel 50 percent of the time implies a roughly 65 percent increase in the fuel economy credited to dual-fuel vehicles. For example, in 2006 a 19-mpg Ford
F-150 pickup truck that could also burn E85 (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline)received a 31-mpg rating for the purposes of Ford’s CAFE standard compliance. The
assumption of equally likely gasoline and E85 consumption directly contradicts government survey data that reveals a very small frequency of alternative fuel use and the fact that a very small
. The experience
fraction of the more than 200,000 gas stations in the United States sell E85. For example, in California there are currently four stations open to the public selling E85
with the dual-fuel credit under the CAFE standard suggests that there will be ample opportunities in the full fuel
cycle GHG emissions determination process to set the GHG content of alternative fuels to ensure compliance with
the LCFS without ever achieving tangible GHG emissions reductions.

9
LCFS can’t solve GHG emissions – it still results in excessive CO2 consumption.
ftp://zia.stanford.edu/pub/papers/lcfs_wolak.pdf )
Everyone has heard of fad diets claiming to make weight loss easier. Consider a diet that promises weight loss by
allowing the participant to eat as much food as they would like as long as the average calories per pound of food
eaten is less than some standard. Unless the average calories per pound of food eaten standard is set extremely low,
this diet is unlikely to work. The only proven way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories or increase physical activity
so that the amount of calories burned exceeds the amount eaten. Reducing the average calorie content of foods eaten
will not work unless this inequality is satisfied. Replacing “calories” by “GHG emissions” and “pounds of food” by
“BTUs of energy” produces the LCFS. Policymakers wanting to reduce transportation- sector GHG emissions
should take note. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the only way to reduce atmospheric CO2
concentration is to consume less CO2-producing fuels or increase carbon sequestration activity so that the net
amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere is reduced. Before more jurisdictions adopt an LCFS, there should be
some demonstration of its efficacy in increasing the amount of effort devoted to these two proven mechanisms for
achieving GHG emissions reductions.

10
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – NO INFRASTRUCTURE
Biofuel production will be slow – infrastructure takes too long to develop.

Duncan 08 (Alexander, assistant editor for Platts Inside Energy, May 19, 2008, “Aggressive biofuels mandate could
cause ripples across economy, API chief warns”, Lexis)
High-ranking officials in the oil industry and the Environmental Protection Agency expressed serious concern last
week that biofuels-production targets mandated by law last year might not be met, creating a serious strain on the
economy. The head of the American Petroleum Institute and a career EPA official were cautiously optimistic, but
said technological gaps and a lack of critical infrastructure could impede the targets from being met. The so-called
renewable fuels standard that became law in December calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be produced
annually by 2022. The gradually increasing targets in the bill (H.R.6) are heavily dependent on the
commercialization of cellulosic ethanol, a technology that involves taking fibrous biomass, such as wood, and
turning it into liquid fuel. Red Cavaney, API's president, said Monday that "it's very difficult to make a totally
successful change [to biofuels] overnight." Cavaney, speaking at a conference hosted by the Society of Automotive
Engineers International, said oil companies would like to see Congress incorporate some "flexibility" into the
federal biofuels mandate as the 36-billion-gallon target approaches in 2022. Cavaney noted that at present, the vast
majority of the biofuels that are being produced are coming from corn. It will not be easy to make the switch to
cellulosic ethanol, he warned. "It's not yet clear that the second generation biofuels will be fully available at the
scale, magnitude, and the distribution necessary to meet the timetables that are in there," Cavaney said.

11
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE– INCREASES FOOD PRICES
The question is not cellulose vs. ethanol--biofuel require fertilizers that threaten the food supply for tens of
millions.
Bradsher and Martin, 08 (Keith and Andrew, NYT reporters, April 30, 2008, “Shortages Threaten Farmers’ Key
Tool: Fertilizer”, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer).
Then the widespread use of inexpensive chemical fertilizer, coupled with market reforms, helped power an
agricultural explosion here that had already occurred in other parts of the world. Yields of rice and corn rose, and
diets grew richer. Now those gains are threatened in many countries by spot shortages and soaring prices for
fertilizer, the most essential ingredient of modern agriculture. Some kinds of fertilizer have nearly tripled in price in
the last year, keeping farmers from buying all they need. That is one of many factors contributing to a rise in food
prices that, according to the United Nations’ World Food Program, threatens to push tens of millions of poor people
into malnutrition. Protests over high food prices have erupted across the developing world, and the stability of
governments from Senegal to the Philippines is threatened. In the United States, farmers in Iowa eager to replenish
nutrients in the soil have increased the age-old practice of spreading hog manure on fields. In India, the cost of
subsidizing fertilizer for farmers has soared, leading to political dispute. And in Africa, plans to stave off hunger by
increasing crop yields are suddenly in jeopardy. The squeeze on the supply of fertilizer has been building for
roughly five years. Rising demand for food and biofuels prompted farmers everywhere to plant more crops. As
demand grew, the fertilizer mines and factories of the world proved unable to keep up.

12
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – INNOVATION IMPOSSIBLE
Cellulosic ethanol cannot be genetically engineered to fulfill fuel needs—tech will not improve.
Friedemann, 2007 (Alice, Biologist from University of Illinois, “Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are
unsustainable and a threat to America” April 10
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1)
The success of cellulosic ethanol depends on finding or engineering organisms that can tolerate extremely high
concentrations of ethanol. Augenstein argues that this creature would already exist if it were possible. Organisms
have had a billion years of optimization through evolution to develop a tolerance to high ethanol levels (Benemann
2006). Someone making beer, wine, or moonshine would have already discovered this creature if it could exist.
The range of chemical and physical properties in biomass, even just corn stover (Ruth 2003, Sluiter 2000), is a
challenge. It’s hard to make cellulosic ethanol plants optimally efficient, because processes can’t be tuned to such
wide feedstock variation.

13
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – OTHER NATIONS OVERWHELM C02
Modeling is irrelevant – growing emissions in developing countries make CO2 reduction impossible.
For example, if the United States were to unilaterally reduced emissions by 30% or 40% below 2004 levels[8] by
2030; net global CO2 emissions would still increase by more than 40%. The reason is straightforward: either of
these reduction levels is offset by the increases in CO2 emissions in developing countries. For example, a 30% cut
below 2004 levels by 2030 by the United States offsets less than 60% of China’s increase in emissions during the
same period. In fact, even if the United States were to eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2030, without any
corresponding actions by other countries, world-wide emissions would still increase by 30%. If the United States
were joined by the other OECD countries in a CO2 reduction effort, net emissions would still significantly
increase. In the event of an OCED-wide reduction of 30%, global emissions increase by 33%; a reduction of 40%
still leads to a net increase of just under 30%. Simply put, in order to hold CO2 emissions at 2004 levels, absent any
reductions by developing nations like China and India, all OECD emissions would have to cease.[9] The lack of
participation by all significant sources of GHGs not only means it is unlikely that net reductions will occur; it also
means that the cost of meaningful reductions is increased dramatically. Nordhous (2007) for example, argues that for
the “importance of near-universal participation to reduce greenhouse gases.”[10] His analysis shows that GHG
emission reduction plans that include, for example, 50% of world-wide emissions impose additional costs of 250
percent. Thus, he find’s GHG abatement plans like Kyoto (which does not include significant emitters like the
United States, China, and India) to be “seriously flawed” and “likely to be ineffective.” [11] Even if the United
States had participated, he argues that Kyoto would make “but a small contribution to slowing global warming, and
it would continue to be highly inefficient.”[12]The data on emissions and economic analysis of reduction programs
make it clear that GHG emissions are a global issue. Actions by localities, sectors, states, regions or even nations are
unlikely to effectively reduce net global emissions unless these reductions are to a large extent mirrored by all
significant emitting nations.

14
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – MID-EAST OIL
LCFS stops refining of Canadian oil sands, increasing dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And, they can’t
solve CO2 emissions because Canada will just sell oil to other countries. Tanks relations with Canada, too.
Obviously the production of oil sands is more difficult than that of traditional petroleum. The production, extraction, separation, and upgrading the bitumen of oil sands requires significantly
, the lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands is
more energy than that of conventional oil.[36] Because of the greater energy used to produce these resources
greater than that of conventional oil. Estimates of the increase in lifecycle emissions range from 14-70%.[37] State
low carbon fuel standards and/or prohibitions against using transportation fuels produced from “non-conventional”
sources, therefore, have the potential to negatively impact Canadian oil imports and the United States’ energy
security. For example, in the case of a low carbon fuel standard, fuel producers could achieve significant global
warming intensity reductions by fuel switching from sources like Canadian oil sands to conventional petroleum
products. This generates the perverse outcome whereby the United States ends up importing more petroleum from
unsecure foreign sources such as western Africa and the Middle East; while, at the same time, doing nothing to
reduce GHG emissions on a net basis, since the Canadian oil will simply flow to other markets such as China.[38] Obviously such an
outcome is a negative viewed either through the prism of a GHG emission reduction program or for our energy security. Language like that contained in Section 526 of P.L. 110-140 is similarly
suspect from a GHG emission reduction and/or energy security perspective. A plain reading of the language - “No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative or
synthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use” - could be read in such a way that an agency of the federal government, the
Department of Defense for example, may not be able enter into a contract to purchase oil from a refinery that uses Canadian oil sands. Again, this makes little sense from a GHG perspective - this
oil will be consumed by the world market - and makes no sense for America’s long term energy security since most
of the world’s conventional reserves of oil are located in unsecure regions. In fact, this language has generated
significant concern within the Canadian government. Recently, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, wrote to Secretary of Defence
Robert Gates about Section 526 arguing that “there is little fuel on the U.S. market that is 100% petroleum extracted only by conventional methodology” and that interpreting Section 526 to
apply to all commercially-available fuel made in part from non-conventional petroleum could exclude all fuel commercially available in the United States from being eligible for purchase by the
United States government.” This would result in the United States being seen as “preferring off-shore crude from other countries over fuel made in part from United States and Canadian
such initiatives imperil technological innovations designed to increase the
sources.” [39] Beyond just an impact on Canadian oil, however,
productivity of existing oil wells in the United States as well. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) are methods by which
the additional reserves from existing fields can be produced; with the potential to increase the recovery of oil from
these reservoirs to a rate as high as 60%.[40] These methods fall into the “unconventional” category in that they
involve the use of additional steps (such as the introduction of heat in thermal recovery) and extraction efforts. One
such method, CO2 injection, which uses the pressure of gas to push more oil to the well bore, is supported by DOE
research[41] as both a way to increase the productivity of existing American oil fields and as a way to capture and
sequester CO2. Employing EOR technology, such as CO2 injection, could increase the recoverable reserves of the
United State by as much as 20 billion barrels.[42] Like oil sands, however, EOR is both unconventional and may
have a slightly higher lifecycle emissions profile then conventional oil (some estimate that EOR emissions are between 2 and 19% higher).[43]
This could produce the perverse outcome whereby the United States Government, following the prohibition found in Sec. 526 of P.L. 110-140, would be prevented from entering into a contract to
purchase American-produced oil that was the product of American government funded research. Such an outcome makes little sense from an environmental or energy policy perspective. These
actions which attempt to reduce GHG emissions that do not include the participation
examples underscore the more general point that
by all significant emitters, or that is blind to other considerations such as energy security, are likely to result in
outcomes that do not serve the stated aim to stabilize global concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the examples
here, the “best” result of such programs merely shifts emissions to other parts of the globe; the “worst: result is that
it makes the United States more dependent on un-secure sources of foreign energy.

15
LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – MID-EAST OIL
LCFSs force greater dependence on the Middle East because it has the lowest carbon lifecycle.
The Washington Times, June 20, 2008 (“McCain oil plan relies on Middle East”
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/)
The presumed Republican presidential nominee called last year to expand California's low carbon fuel standard,
which measures the amount of greenhouse gases needed to produce fuel and punishes use of "dirty" heavy crude oil
in favor of conventional light crude or alternative fuels. Expanding that plan nationwide would force U.S. refiners to
buy less American and Canadian oil - which come increasingly from dirty sources like shale and tar sands - and
instead use more oil from the Middle East. "We are likely to increase our dependence on just those very countries we
all worry about," said William Koetzle, senior vice president of public policy at the Institute for Energy Research, a
think tank that promotes free-market solutions. "If you create disincentives for the use of Canadian oil, it'll have to
be replaced with oil from another place, and that probably means oil from OPEC."
Ethanol can’t solve oil dependence.

Breining, 2007 (Greg, January 11, University of Minnesota Magazine, Jan-Feb issue, “Five Reasons Corn Ethanol
Won’t Save the Planet”, Breining writes for several publications, including the New York Times, National
Geographic Traveler, and Wildlife Conservation.)
“Twelve percent of the U.S. corn crop is converted to ethanol, which replaces less than 2 percent of U.S. gasoline
usage. Diverting all our corn to ethanol production (which would mean no more corn flakes, marbled beef, fructose-
sweetened soda, or any other corn product), would reduce gasoline consumption by only 12 percent. But, according
to Hill’s study, even that dismal statistic is overly sanguine. Because so much fossil fuel is burned just to make
ethanol, turning our entire corn crop to ethanol production would reduce our fossil fuel use by just 2.4 percent.

16
CELLULOSIC BAD - LONG TIME FRAME

Cellulosic ethanol won’t be economically viable for years to come, our evidence cites government studies.
Philpott 2007 (Grist's food editor and founder of Maverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture non-profit, Tom,
September 13, “The USDA goes all lukewarm on cellulosic ethanol”)
So the USDA's analysts should know something about the prospects for mass production of cellulosic ethanol,
hailed by its boosters as a panacea that can wean us not only from oil, but also from corn as an ethanol feedstock. So
what's the latest from USDA analysts on this miracle fuel? From a report released last week: Although cellulosic-
based production of renewable fuels holds some longer-term promise, much research is needed to make it
commercially economical and expand beyond the 250-million-gallon minimum specified for 2013 in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. What? Okay, let's break this statement down. "Some longer term promise," huh? I realize that
government analysts like to affect a dry, phlegmatic tone, but that's hardly the sort of language boosters want to see
from the agency most responsible for nurturing a technology. Then there's this bit: The analyst doubts cellulosic can
be "commercially economical" enough to get beyond 250 million gallons by 2013. According to the same report,
corn-based ethanol producers churned out 5 billion gallons in '06 and will likely hit 10 billion by '09. What the
researcher is saying is that six years from now, in 2013, cellulosic still won't be economically viable. For decades
now, cellulosic boosters have been promising a major breakthrough within five years. And the future cellulosic
utopia keeps receding ever-further into the future.

17
CELLULOSIC BAD - EMISSIONS

Cellulosic ethanol is a horrible alternative – it produces more greenhouse gases and the tech is not ready.
Milloy 08 ("Junk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count Begins" Steven - columnist for Fox News and a paid
advocate for Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil. Fox News. April 17, 2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html)
Biofuel proponents hope the reliance on food crops to produce biofuels is temporary, and they point to a future
where non-food biomass (such as corn stalks and grasses) is used to produce so-called cellulosic ethanol. But in
addition to the fact that the technology for producing cellulosic ethanol on a cost-effective basis is nowhere near
ready for prime time, the greenhouse gas footprint of cellulosic ethanol likely will be far worse than that of corn-
based ethanol. It’s one thing to transport relatively compact corn kernels to be processed into ethanol; it’s quite
another to transport bulky biomass. The bulk problem would require a multitude of cellulosic ethanol plants to be
built around the country — a project that could be quite costly and difficult to locate given the phenomenon of
NIMBY-ism and the problem of plant emissions making it more difficult for states to comply with federal air quality
standards. States that don’t meet those standards don’t get their much-needed federal highway funds. Food riots are
only the tip of the green iceberg. We might also expect energy riots to erupt one day.

18
CELLULOSIC BAD – BIODIVERSITY
Cellulosic ethanol accelerates soil erosion, water depletion, pollution and loss of biodiversity.
Friedemann, 2007 (Alice, Biologist from University of Illinois, “Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are
unsustainable and a threat to America” April 10
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1)
Crop residues are essential for soil nutrition, water retention, and soil carbon. Making cellulosic ethanol from corn
residues -- the parts of the plant we don’t eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) – removes water, carbon, and nutrients
(Nelson, 2002, McAloon 2000, Sheehan, 2003). These practices lead to lower crop production and ultimately
deserts. Growing plants for fuel will accelerate the already unacceptable levels of topsoil erosion, soil carbon and
nutrient depletion, soil compaction, water retention, water depletion, water pollution, air pollution, eutrophication,
destruction of fisheries, siltation of dams and waterways, salination, loss of biodiversity, and damage to human
health (Tegtmeier 2004).

19
CELLULOSIC BAD – NOT ENOUGH FUEL
Cellulosic ethanol isn’t a viable fuel source.

Bryce, 2008 (Robert, fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, The Washington Post, “5 Myths About Breaking
Our Foreign Oil Habit” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452_pf.html 1/13)
So what about cellulosic ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that can be produced from grass, wood and other plant
sources? Many in Congress believe that it will ride to the rescue. But the commercial viability of cellulosic ethanol
is a bit like the tooth fairy: Many believe in it, but no one ever actually sees it. After all, even with heavy federal
subsidies, it took 13 years before the corn-ethanol sector was able to produce 1 billion gallons of fuel per year. Two
and a half decades elapsed before annual corn-ethanol production reached 5 billion gallons, as it did in 2006. But
now Congress is demanding that the cellulosic-ethanol business magically produce many times that volume of fuel
in just 15 years. It's not going to happen.

20
CELLULOSIC BAD – DEFORESTATION
Cellolosic ethanol causes deforestation.

Barry, 2008 (Glen, President and Founder of Ecological Internet, “The Ecological Madness of Biofuels, Take Two”
http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html, March 30)
If you thought burning food for fuel -- agrofuels -- has been an unmitigated disaster, just wait until we start chopping
up our last natural forest habitats for cellulosic ethanol biofuel. Much heralded second generation biofuels, to be
based largely upon woody biomass, will be a resounding ecological disaster, and must be stopped now. It is a myth
that enough unused forest and agricultural waste, and a surplus of land to grow various grasses and wood, exists to
base an industrial energy source. Humanity must stop seeking easy answers to perceived energy shortages that in
fact are a result of over-population and ecological limits to growth. Agrofuels were heavily promoted for climate
benefits and pursued at much expense, yet have been catastrophic to the world's food security, habitat, water and
climate. The same will be true of ethanol production from trees. Cellulosic ethanol will be the ultimate deforestation
biofuel, equivalent to dismantling and burning your home to keep warm.

21
CORN GOOD – AT: FOOD PRICES

Corn based ethanol is not driving up global food prices.
Carey, 2008 (May 12, Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? Corn-based ethanol isn’t the villain critics contend, but
shifting to other fuels is critical, Business Week, What’s Next—Green Biz; p. 60, Vol. 4083)
First, a reality check on corn ethanol, which isn't quite the villain critics make it out to be. Last year, American
farmers grew a record 13.1 billion bushels of corn on 85 million acres. Of that, 22% went to make about 7 billion
gallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels,
and stockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasing
corn-based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) without
reducing the amount going for food and feed, and without increasing acres planted. The secret: continuing
improvements in yields. Of course, it's impossible to divert nearly one-quarter of the corn crop to fuel without
causing prices to rise. Corn is now around $5.50 per bushel, more than double its price in 2005. But this has had a
relatively small impact on the broader runup in global food prices. Higher corn costs add 2 cents to a box of corn
flakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in rice
and wheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. "Biofuels are a very, very small factor" in rising
food costs, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that tries
to strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices would
still be up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to make
fertilizer, and climatic factors such as Australia's drought. It's also worth noting that these high crop prices save
taxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmers--far more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.
Certainly, a rapid rise in food prices brings misery to poor countries. But over the long haul, "it's not obvious that
high grain prices are inherently bad," asserts Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources
Defense Council. Years of cheap, subsidized grain in the U.S. and Europe have left farmers in the developing
world unable to compete. They can't invest in better seed, machinery, or cultivation practices (page 26). As a
result, global average yields for corn, wheat, and rice are less than half what the world's top 10% of farmers
achieve. While American corn farmers produce 150 bushels per acre, farms in the developing world often get
only 30. "If there is a crime against humanity, it is these low yields," not biofuels, says Richard Hamilton, CEO of
Ceres Inc., a Thousand Oaks (Calif.) startup developing biofuel crops. Those low yields will improve if farmers
make more money. In the long term, "high prices will lead these countries to produce more of their own food,"
says Morris, easing the supply shortages. Ethanol critics also may forget other benefits. For one, the billions of
gallons of ethanol are moderating oil prices by "easing energy bottlenecks," says Francisco Blanch, head of
global commodity research at Merrill Lynch. Blanch figures that oil prices would be at least 15% higher than they
are, if not for today's output of ethanol. And given the dependence of the whole food supply chain on oil and gas,
"food prices might be higher if we were not producing biofuels," says venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. The stacks
of corn going into ethanol "act as a large cushion," adds Illinois farmer John Reifsteck. As corn prices climb,
ethanol companies make less money. When corn becomes too valuable to convert to biofuels, the grain will go
back into feed and food.

22
BIOFUELS DO NOT CAUSE FOOD PRICE HIKES
Biofuels are a very minor factor in food prices—energy is a more important cost.
Carey 2008 (John, senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau and received awards from the
American Institute of Biological Sciences and former editor of The Scientist and the National & International
Wildlife magazines, “Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap?” May 1)
gallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels, and
stockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasing corn-
based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) without
flakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in rice and
wheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. "Biofuels are a very, very small factor" in rising food
costs, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that tries to
strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices would still
be up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to make
taxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmers—far more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.
Biofuels bolster agriculture and lowers prices.

Zubrin ’07 (Robert, Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Washington, President of Pioneer
Astronautics, Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil, Prometheus Books: Amherst,
New York, 2007. p. 30-31)
Even with methanol in the mix, the shifting of the world from a petroleum to an alcohol standard would remain a
great boon to farmers. And third world farmers as much as American growers would enjoy the benefits-not only
from a vastly increased market for their products, but also from the collapse of petroleum prices (which currently
threaten crushing fertilizer and truck and tractor fuel prices). This adds a strong humanitarian case for the transition
to flexible fuels. It also adds to the strategic case. Currently, third world demagogues [end page 30] such as
Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez are using the issue of advanced-sector import barriers to agricultural products as a
red flag to seize power. Opening our markets would take this issue away. By providing third world populations with
an extensive source of income, the alcohol economy would also give them the wherewithal to buy manufactured
products from developed nations. We would end up selling far more tractors and harvesters and hybrid seeds to
Africans, for instance. That would improve the economic condition of all nations. The extraordinarily positive
results of such a policy for furthering global development, expanding trade, and raising living standards will be
discussed in chapter 8.

23
BIOFUELS DO NOT CAUSE FOOD PRICE HIKES
Biofuels have almost no impact on food prices.

Carey 08 (John, senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau, May 1, 2008, “Is Ethanol Getting a
Bum Rap?”, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19/b4083060454256.htm)
gallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels, and
stockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasing corn-
based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) without
flakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in rice and
wheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. "Biofuels are a very, very small factor" in rising food
costs, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that tries to
strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices would still
be up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to make
taxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmers—far more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.

24
NO IMPACT FOOD PRICES

High food prices are not necessarily bad—poorer farmers make more money too.
Carey 2008 (John, senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau and received awards from the
American Institute of Biological Sciences and former editor of The Scientist and the National & International
Wildlife magazines, “Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap?” May 1)
Certainly, a rapid rise in food prices brings misery to poor countries. But over the long haul, "it's not obvious that
high grain prices are inherently bad," asserts Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources
Defense Council. Years of cheap, subsidized grain in the U.S. and Europe have left farmers in the developing world
unable to compete. They can't invest in better seed, machinery, or cultivation practices (page 26). As a result, global
average yields for corn, wheat, and rice are less than half what the world's top 10% of farmers achieve. While
American corn farmers produce 150 bushels per acre, farms in the developing world often get only 30. "If there is a
crime against humanity, it is these low yields," not biofuels, says Richard Hamilton, CEO of Ceres Inc., a Thousand
Oaks (Calif.) startup developing biofuel crops. Those low yields will improve if farmers make more money. In the
long term, "high prices will lead these countries to produce more of their own food," says Morris, easing the supply
shortages.

25
CORN CAUSES GM CROPS

Corn ethanol is generating huge demand for GM crops.
Leonard 2007 (Andrew, senior editor of Salon Magazine, “Why Monsanto loves ethanol”, March 26, Salon
Magazine)
American farmers, spurred by ethanol frenzy, are planting the largest corn crop in more than 50 years.The demand is
so high, reports Farm News, that seed companies are running out of the most popular varieties of corn seed. At the
top of the list are "triple stack hybrids" sold mostly by Monsanto-owned subsidiaries. A triple stack hybrid combines
genetic modifications that result in three different "traits." In this case, the corn comes with built-in resistance to
Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, and built-in insecticides that target two of the corn plant's most fearsome foes, the
dreaded corn borer and the equally devastating corn rootworm. (The corn borer and corn rootworm toxins are
derived from two different subspecies of the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis -- triple stack hybrids thus include
two different "Bt" genetic modification "events.") For Monsanto, the apparent popularity of triple stack hybrid corn
seed is an opportunity to tout the market's embrace of its latest products. For critics of GM corn, the rush to such
varieties presages a future filled with weeds that evolve to resist Roundup and new generations of corn borers and
rootworms that shrug off Bt toxins. No doubt Monsanto plans to come up with new, "improved" corn seed products
that will target new, improved pests, and will be able to resist new, improved herbicides. That is the treadmill that
the human race has put itself on, and whether we'll ever be able to get off of it seems a highly doubtful proposition,
unless food prices rise so high that biofuels become politically impossible. But that dreary quagmire is not the point
of this post. For some time, How the World Works has been convinced that the rush to biofuels will significantly
boost the ongoing rollout of genetically modified organisms. There's just too much money at stake in the energy
business for it to be otherwise. The popularity of the latest biotech crops is a perfect illustration of this. These seeds
aren't cheap -- they are top-of-the-line products. But for well-financed farmers and industrial-scale agribusinesses
aiming to cash in on ethanol demand, seed costs are not a significant barrier. It seems reasonable to expect, in the
not-too-distant future, quadruple- and quintuple- and sextuple-stacked hybrids that do all kinds of fancy things such
as incorporate herbicide resistance, targeted pesticides, and modifications that make the corn cheaper and easier to
industrially transform into ethanol.

26
CORN DECLINING NOW

Corn based ethanol will inevitably be replaced by other biofuels.
Rueters 2007 (Tim Gardner, March 28, “Corn is not the Future of U.S. Ethanol: DOE”)
NEW YORK (Reuters) - New technology to make ethanol from crops such as grasses and trees instead of corn could
ease price spikes of the grain within a decade, a U.S. Energy Department official said on Wednesday. "I'm not going
to predict what the price of corn is going to do, but I will tell you the future of biofuels is not based on corn," U.S.
Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said in an interview. Output of U.S. ethanol, which is mostly made from corn, is
expected to jump in 2007 from 5.6 billion gallons per year to 8 billion gpy, as nearly 80 bio-refineries sprout up.
Corn prices have doubled over the last year as the Bush administration, seeking to reduce oil imports while boosting
output of fuels believed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, offers millions of dollars in incentives to boost ethanol
production. The corn prices, the highest in a decade, have spurred thousands of people in Mexico to protest over the
price of tortillas, a national staple made from corn. The spike has also lead to worries that meat and dairy prices
could eventually rise. Sell said the future of biofuels is cellulosic ethanol, made from microbes that break down
woody bits of non-food crops into sugars that can be fermented into fuel. Cellulosic, and other new biofuels such as
biobutanol, which can be made from petroleum as well as biomass, could begin to feed the commercial fuel market
within six to 10 years, he said. They could also be part of a larger program to cut greenhouse gases, he added.

27
NO PEAK OIL – LESS DEMAND

No peak oil – high oil prices have lowered the demand for oil.
Christian Science Monitor, 2007 (“Why ‘Peak Oil’ May Soon Pique Your Interest”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p15s01-wmgn.html?page=2 August 6)
Dr. Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London, isn't so pessimistic. He
notes that with higher prices, the demand for oil has started to fall, at least in the 30 industrial nations belonging to
the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Since 2006, their demand has dropped
by about 400,000 barrels a day. And the demand for crude in bustling and populous China and India rose only 0.7
percent last year. His research institute forecasts world demand will rise "not more than 1 percent a year." Other
researchers predict 1.4 to 1.5 percent a year, a significant difference. Mr. Chalabi says forecasts for the world oil
industry cannot be relied on, having proved wrong in the past. Today's forecasts do not fully take into account the
impact higher prices have in reducing demand and encouraging alternative energy sources, he adds.

28
NO PEAK OIL – MYTH
Peak oil is a myth created by companies to keep prices high.

Connor, 2008 (June 9, Steve, The Independent, p4, “Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider”)
There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a former industry adviser
who claims there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven reserves are calculated. Although it is widely
assumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has peaked and proven reserves have sunk to
roughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, a former oil industry man
who is now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Current estimates suggest there are 1,200 billion
barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to less than half of what
actually exists. The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending jitters through the market
and prompting calls for oil-producing nations to increase supply to push down costs. Flying into Japan for a summit
two days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8 countries yesterday discussed an
action plan to ease the crisis. Explaining why the published estimates of proven global reserves are less than half the
true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producers were glad to go along with under-
reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oil industry is perfectly familiar with the
way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision makers in both the companies and the countries are not
exposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said. Dr Pike's assessment
does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit. The
environmental implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside the industry, will alarm
environmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to find greener
alternatives.
New statistics prove we haven’t hit peak oil

Lendman 08 ("Peak Oil - True or False." Stephen - Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Global Research. March 6, 2008 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8220)
Daniel Yergin's Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) disagrees. Its analysis finds that "the remaining
global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels - three times as large as the (claimed) 1.2 trillion barrels by
(peak oil) proponents." CERA argues further that peak oil reasoning is faulty and, "if accepted, (may) distort critical
policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future." It states as well that the "global
resource base of conventional and unconventional oils....is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow" and bases its
analysis on fields now in production and those "yet-to-be produced or discovered." Its chairman, Daniel Yergin,
noted that: "This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil. Each time....technology and the
opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There's no reason to think that technology is
finished this time." The Paris-based International Energy Agency (AIE) agrees. It's an energy policy advisor to its 27
member countries that was founded by the OECD in 1974 in the wake of that period's oil crisis. It believes peak oil
notions are extreme, says there's "no shortage of available oil and gas in the ground," but new technologies must be
found to curb "the world's thirst for them (and to) tap reserves" to increase production. AIE believes as much as 10
trillion barrels of "oil equivalent" conventional oil and gas exist and at least as much non-conventional oil.

29
NO PEAK OIL – RESERVES

No peak oil now – the theory ignores alternative energy, new oil reserves, exaggerates demand and ignores
temporary political causes.
Hossein-zadeh, June 25, 2008 (Ismael, Professor of Economics “Are they really oil wars?”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html, Asia Times Online)
Peak Oil theory is based on a number of assumptions and omissions that make it less than reliable. To begin with, it
discounts or disregards the fact that energy-saving technologies have drastically improved (and will continue to
further improve) the efficiency of oil consumption. Evidence shows that, for example, "over a period of five years
(1994-99), US GDP expanded over 20% while oil usage rose by only 9%. Before the 1973 oil shock, the ratio was
about one to one." [4] Second, Peak Oil theory pays scant attention to the drastically enabling new technologies that
have made (and will continue to make) possible discovery and extraction of oil reserves that were inaccessible only
a short time ago. One of the results of the more efficient means of research and development has been a far higher
success rate in finding new oil fields. The success rate has risen in 20 years from less than 70% to over 80%.
Computers have helped to reduce the number of dry holes. Horizontal drilling has boosted extraction. Another
important development has been deep-water offshore drilling, which the new technologies now permit. Good
examples are the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and more recently, the promising offshore oil fields of West Africa.
[5] Third, Peak Oil theory also pays short shrift to what is sometimes called non-conventional oil. These include
Canada's giant reserves of extra-heavy bitumen that can be processed to produce conventional oil. Although this was
originally considered cost inefficient, experts working in this area now claim that they have brought down the cost
from over US$20 a barrel to $8 per barrel. Similar developments are taking place in Venezuela. It is thanks to
developments like these that since 1970, world oil reserves have more than doubled, despite the extraction of
hundreds of millions of barrels. [6] Fourth, Peak Oil thesis pays insufficient attention to energy sources other than
oil. These include solar, wind, non-food bio-fuel, and nuclear energies. They also include natural gas. Gas is now
about 25% of energy demand worldwide. It is estimated that by 2050 it will be the main source of energy in the
world. A number of American, European, and Japanese firms are investing heavily in developing fuel cells for cars
and other vehicles that would significantly reduce gasoline consumption. [7] Fifth, proponents of Peak Oil tend to
exaggerate the impact of the increased oil demand coming from China and India on both the amount and the price of
oil in global markets. The alleged disparity between supply and demand is said to be due to the rapidly growing
demand coming from China and India. But that rapid growth in demand is largely offset by a number of
counterbalancing factors. These include slower growth in US demand due to its slower economic growth, efficient
energy utilization in industrially advanced countries, and increases in oil production by members of the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia, and others. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, claims of "peaked and
dwindling" oil are refuted by the available facts and figures on global oil supply. Statistical evidence shows that
there is absolutely no supply-demand imbalance in global oil markets. Contrary to the claims of the proponents of
Peak Oil and champions of war and militarism, the current oil price shocks are a direct consequence of the
destabilizing wars and geopolitical insecurity in the Middle East, not oil shortages.

30
NO PEAK OIL - RESERVES
No oil shortage – the industry underestimates reserves.

The Independent, June 9, 2008 (“Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider,” byline Steve Connor, science editor,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080609/ai_n25502935, accessed 06-30-08)
Although it is widely assumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has peaked and proven
reserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, a
former oil industry man who is now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Current estimates suggest
there are 1,200 billion barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to
less than half of what actually exists. The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending
jitters through the market and prompting calls for oil- producing nations to increase supply to push down costs.
Flying into Japan for a summit two days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8
countries yesterday discussed an action plan to ease the crisis. Explaining why the published estimates of proven
global reserves are less than half the true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producers
were glad to go along with under- reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oil
industry is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision makers in both the
companies and the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said to
be," he said. Dr Pike's assessment does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed
too uneconomic to exploit. The environmental implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside the
industry, will alarm environmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to
find greener alternatives. "The bad news is that by underestimating proven oil reserves we have been lulled into a
false sense of security in terms of environmental issues, because it suggests we will have to find alternatives to fossil
fuels in a few decades," said Dr Pike. "We should not be surprised if oil dominates well into the twenty- second
century. It highlights a major error in energy and environmental planning - we are dramatically underestimating the
challenge facing us," he said. Proven oil reserves are likely to be far larger than reported because of the way the
capacity of oilfields is estimated and how those estimates are added to form the proven reserves of a company or a
country. Companies add the estimated capacity of oil fields in a simple arithmetic manner to get proven oil reserves.
This gives a deliberately conservative total deemed suitable for shareholders who do not want proven reserves
hyped, Dr Pike said. However, mathematically it is more accurate to add the proven oil capacity of individual fields
in a probabilistic manner based on the bell-shaped statistical curve used to estimate the proven, probable and
possible reserves of each field. This way, the final capacity is typically more than twice that of simple, arithmetic
addition, Dr Pike said. "The same also goes for natural gas because these fields are being estimated in much the
same way. The world is understating the environmental challenge and appears unprepared for the difficult
compromises that will have to be made."

31
NO PEAK OIL - RESERVES
Oil will never run out – there is not a shortage, only an economic disincentive to produce
Adelman, ’04 (M. A., professor of economics emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Real Oil
Problem,” Regulation, Spring, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf, Accessed 07-01-08)
It is commonly asked, when will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted? The best one-word answer: Never. Since
the human race began to use minerals, there has been eternal struggle — stingy nature versus inquisitive mankind.
The payoff is the price of the mineral, and mankind has won big, so far. However, alarmists point to world oil prices
and claim that what has happened “so far” will not continue much longer. They might have a point — if the world
oil market featured several different, competitive suppliers. But instead, it is dominated by a monopoly supplier, so
the higher prices in themselves mean nothing. To understand this, one needs a quick course in resource economics.
Minerals are produced from reserves, which are mineral deposits discovered and identified as able to be extracted
profitably. Are oil reserves dwindling? Is it getting harder to find or create them? Conventional wisdom says: Of
course. But once again, conventional wisdom is wrong. Reserves are a type of warehouse inventory, the result of
investment. One cannot make a decision to drill and operate an oil well without a forecast of the well’s production.
Moreover, as the well’s output falls over time with decreasing pressure, the unit operating cost of the well’s output
will rise. When the operating cost rises above the price that the oil will fetch in the marketplace, the well will be shut
down. Whatever oil is left underground is not worth producing, given current prices and technology. The well’s
proved reserves are the forecast cumulative profitable output, not the total amount of oil that is believed to be in the ground. In the
United States and a few other countries, a nation’s “proved reserves” is the programmed cumulative output from existing and pending wells. In other countries, the definition of “reserves” varies,
and the number is often worthless. At its best (e.g., the estimates released by the U.S. Geological Survey), the “probable reserve” is an estimate of what will eventually be produced in a given
area, out of existing and new wells, with current technique and knowledge, and at prevailing prices. But the size of “known reserves” is not an adequate forecast of eventual production, unless we
assume that in oil, as in Kansas City, “they’ve gone about as far as they can go.” Watching “Oklahoma!” we smile at those who actually believe this — and we should likewise smile at those who
To know
think they know how much oil will be extracted from a well or in an area. To predict ultimate reserves, we need an accurate prediction of future science and technology.
ultimate reserves, we must first have ultimate knowledge. Nobody knows this, and nobody should pretend to know.
The dwindling of reserves is a legend firmly believed because it seems so obvious. Assume any number for the size of reserves. From it, subtract a few years’ current output. The conclusion is
absolutely sure: Reserves are dwindling; the wolf is getting closer. In time, production must cease. Oil in the ground becomes constantly more valuable — so much so that a gap forms between
how much oil we want and how much we are able to afford because of scarcity. Civilization cannot continue without oil, so something must be done. And indeed, in some times and places the oil
the “running out” vision never works
does run down. Output in the Appalachian United States had peaked by 1900, and output in Texas peaked in 1972. But
globally. At the end of 1970, non-OPEC countries had about 200 billion remaining in proved reserves. In the next 33
years, those countries produced 460 billion barrels and now have 209 billion “remaining.” The producers kept using
up their inventory, at a rate of about seven percent per year, and then replacing it. The OPEC countries started with
about 412 billion in proved reserves, produced 307 billion, and now have about 819 billion left. Their reserve
numbers are shaky, but clearly they had — and have — a lot more inventory than they used up. Saudi Arabia alone
has over 80 known fields and exploits only nine.

32
NO PEAK OIL – DEEP WATER SOLVES
Deep water reserves solve oil shortage

In 1950, there was no offshore oil production; it was highly “unconventional” oil. Some 25 years later, offshore
wells were being drilled in water 1,000 feet deep. And 25 years after that, oilmen were drilling in water 10,000 feet
deep — once technological advancement enabled them to drill without the costly steel structure that had earlier
made deep-water drilling too expensive. Today, a third of all U.S. oil production comes from offshore wells. Given
current knowledge and technique, the U.S. Geological Survey predicts offshore oil will ultimately comprise 50
percent of U.S. production. The offshore reserves did not just happen to come along in time. In an old Mae West
movie, an admirer of one of her rings declared, “Goodness, what a diamond!” She coldly replied, “Goodness had
nothing to do with it.” Likewise, offshore production did not begin and develop by providence or chance, but only
when new knowledge made investment profitable. And the high potential economic rewards were a powerful
inducement for the development of the new knowledge. Offshore drillers found a new way to tap oil beneath the
deep ocean. Oilmen in Canada and Venezuela discovered how to extract oil from those nations’ oil sand deposits. As
new techniques decreased the cost of extraction¸ some of the oil slowly began to be booked into reserves.
Worldwide, is it getting harder and more expensive to find new deposits and develop them into reserves? Up to
about 15 years ago, the cost data clearly said no. Since then, much of the relevant data are no longer published. To
make up for that lack, Campbell Watkins and I tabulated the sales value of proved reserves sold in-ground in the
United States. Our results are a window on the value of oil reserves anywhere in which entrepreneurs can freely
invest. (That rules out the OPEC countries and a few more.) If the cost of finding and developing new reserves were
increasing, the value per barrel of already-developed reserves would rise with it. Over the period 1982–2002, we
found no sign of that. Think of it this way: Anyone could make a bet on rising in ground values — borrow money to
buy and hold a barrel of oil for later sale. With ultimate reserves decreasing every year, the value of oil still in the
ground should grow yearly. The investor’s gain on holding the oil should be at least enough to offset the borrowing
cost plus risk. In fact, we find that holding the oil would draw a negative return even before allowing for risk. To
sum up: There is no indication that non-OPEC oil is getting more expensive to find and develop. Statements about
non-OPEC nations’ “dwindling reserves” are meaningless or wrong.

33
NO PEAK OIL – SAUDI ARABIA WILL SOLVE
Saudi Arabia will stabilize oil prices.

Arab News, June 16, (Samir Al-Saadi, staff writer, “Saudi to take steps to stabilize oil prices: Ban,” Arab News,
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=110936&d=16&m=6&y=2008&pix=kingdom.jpg&categor
y=Kingdom, Accessed 06-30-08)
The Kingdom is to take necessary measures to stabilize the price of oil, said United Nations Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon yesterday following a meeting with Custodian of Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah. Ban, who was
speaking at a press conference in Jeddah, described his talks with King Abdullah as “very constructive and in-
depth,” adding, “We expect the king and his government to take necessary measures to stabilize the price of oil.”
Ban, who is on his second visit to Saudi Arabia since March 2007, described the UN-Saudi cooperation as “very
strong.” He said the price of oil has had an impact on all aspects of life, including the soaring price of food, in
addition to weakening the UN’s capacity to address climate change issues. “I have conveyed such concern, the
concern expressed by a number of world leaders during the Food Agriculture Organization summit in Rome and I
am sure King Abdullah shares the same concern,” he said. Ban added that the issues of rising food and fuel prices,
and climate change should be addressed “comprehensively.” He also expressed hopes that the upcoming Saudi-
hosted meeting of oil producers and consumers in Jeddah on June 22 would yield a positive outcome. The Kingdom
decided to convene the meeting after crude struck a record high of nearly $140 last week, stoking fears of surging
global inflation and weaker economic growth. “The king also acknowledged that the current oil prices are
abnormally high due to speculative factors and he is willing to do what he can to control it,” said Ban, adding that
King Abdullah feels there are a number of factors affecting prices and, therefore, there is a need to coordinate efforts
with other countries, producers and consumers.

34
NO PEAK OIL – MARKET SELF CORRECTING
Peak oil spurs renewables—status quo solves.

Lynas 2008 (June 26, Mark, Specialist on Climate Change “After the Oil Crunch?”
http://www.countercurrents.org/lynas260608.htm)
But peak oil may not be quite the crisis the catastrophists predict. So far, the price hike has been an environmental
boon: the rise in fossil fuel prices has made emitting carbon more expensive, helping to make up for the more or less
total failure of world climate change policymaking. Higher oil prices have made renewables more competitive,
spurring rapid developments in wind and solar power: installed capacities of each are now doubling every two years.
In the US, SUV sales have slumped - General Motors may now drop the Hummer and focus production instead on
its new plug-in electric hybrid model, the Chevrolet Volt. The aviation industry has seen its profits evaporate, with
many analysts declaring that the era of cheap flights is over. All of these should be causes for celebration. In global
warming terms, oil at $139 a barrel has been the best thing to happen for a decade.
Peak oil just makes alternatives inevitable.

Whitten 08 (Daniel - Bloomberg Reporter. "U.S. Gas Demand Peaked in 2008 as Prices Hurt Growth." June 25,
2008. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a3fzxxqZClXY&pid=20602099)
Oil's upward price trend may ease in the years ahead as U.S. gasoline demand may have peaked in 2008, and the
economy is suffering from skyrocketing prices, said witnesses at a congressional hearing. Daniel Yergin, chairman
of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, told the Joint Economic Committee that oil prices are being driven by
``new fundamentals'' involving the merging of oil and financial markets. He added that the price of oil has hit a
``break point'' where the U.S. will begin to seek alternatives. ``In our view, 2008 may well have been the top, the
peak in terms of U.S. gasoline demand,'' Yergin said in testimony. ``There is much talk about peak oil supply these
days, however, we think something else is at hand, peak demand.'' The U.S. consumes more than 9 million barrels
of gasoline a day, and that number might drop to just over 7 million barrels a day by 2022, with increased use of
ethanol and better energy efficiency, Yergin said.

35
The free market solves oil prices – government intervention will only make it worse
Bradley, 06 (Robert L. Jr., chairman of the Institute for Energy Research, adjunct fellow at the Cato Institute,
“Market Forces are the Only Cure for Oil Prices,” The Cato Institue, May 26,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6418, Accessed 06-30-08)
Fortunately, with higher prices comes increased economic incentive to find, produce, refine and market oil, all of
which brings prices down. The cure for high prices is high prices -- if market forces are allowed to turn today's
problem into tomorrow's solution. Of course, Congress doesn't see it that way. Instead, trying to reverse cause and
effect, lawmakers assert that high prices are the problem, not uncertain supply in the face of increasing demand. One
"solution," therefore, is to impose back-door price controls via laws against "price gouging." But trying to address
increased oil scarcity by forcing prices down is like trying to cure a fever by adjusting the thermometer. It eliminates
the feedback that prices provide to consumers and suppliers. With artificially low prices for gasoline, consumers use
more of the limited supply than they otherwise would, while suppliers (including gasoline importers) do not receive
the economic signal to bring in a greater supply. Soon, the artificially cheap commodity runs short. People begin
wasting time in gasoline lines, and burning fuel while they wait. Another popular "solution" is to impose a
"windfall" profits tax. But why, in times of acute scarcity, should money be taken from those who can alleviate the
abnormal scarcity and given to politicians? Congress is not going to drill wells but redistribute tax dollars.
Increasing taxes only gives a congressman the appearance of "doing something about this crisis" during an election
year. With any luck, by the time the crisis has passed and his "something" has clearly made the problem worse, he
will have been safely re-elected. Today's petroleum problem is not a shortage of energy resources but a surplus of
government. Oil is not the problem, government control of oil is. America is not "addicted" to oil; too many oil-rich
countries are addicted to socialism and nationalism, by which problem-solving entrepreneurship is hampered or
criminalized. The solution is not to stop using petroleum -- a physically impossible, economically ruinous response.
The solution is to start the educational and political reform needed to promote capitalist institutions in the impoverished, resource-rich areas of the world. A capitalistic transformation would
assign private property titles to the subsoil. Such a privatization will promote greater supply and efficiency, and will demote politicians who are the enemies of oil consumers the world over.
Ordinary citizens, having become royalty owners, will be the ones to obtain wealth as oil and gas is found and produced. And these individuals -- let there be many thousands of them -- will rise
from poverty to become part of the investor class, and even philanthropists to their fellow man. Witness the work of oil- and gas-endowed foundations in the United States, for example. Effecting
this transformation will take a lot of hard work. Counting Iraq, a country with a history of repression, three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves are controlled by countries that the Heritage
Foundation rates as "repressed" (Nigeria, Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Iraq) or "mostly unfree" (e.g., Russia, China, Qatar, Algeria, Brazil, and Kazakhstan). In all of these lands, the spectre of Karl
Marx must be replaced with the spirit of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Hernando De Soto. The Hugo Chavezes of the world must be replaced with leaders who know that socialism is a dry
. The United States has a government
hole, while capitalism empowers citizens, promotes savings, increases investment, and produces wealth that redounds to the masses
energy problem too. Witness our folly in mandating quotas for inferior energies and blocking access to (government
owned) hydrocarbon-rich areas offshore and in Alaska. Yet there is a silver lining to this folly, for it means that our
government can lead the world through example, ending energy subsidies across the board and privatizing public
resource holdings. To blaze a path away from oil statism, our government's leaders must let our own oil industry
invest the capital it has earned and thereby increase infrastructure. And they must tell the world why they are doing
so: because they have learned that the solution to a bread shortage lies in building more bakeries, not in wrecking
them.

36
No peak oil – technology has empirically disproven pessimistic speculations.

Gholz and Press, ’07 (Eugene Gholz, Assistant Professor at U. of TX, and Daryl G. Press, assistant professor
Dartmouth and associate of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, “Energy
Alarmism: The Myths that Many Americans Worry about Oil,” The Cato Institute, April 5,
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa589.pdf, Accessed 06-30-08)
The pessimistic claims about peaking oil supplies should be treated with skepticism. For decades, analysts have
argued that oil supplies were dwindling and that the peak rate of production would soon been reached. In fact, the
most eminent advocate of that argument today once predicted that the global production peak would occur in 1989,
but since then global crude oil production has grown by 23 percent, and oil supply (crude oil and other petroleum
liquids) has grown by more than 28 percent.24More telling, the world’s ultimately recoverable resources (URR)
have been growing over time, largely because many fields contain substantially more oil than was originally
believed.25 One reason URR are growing despite the world’s continuing consumption of oil is that improved
technology has allowed a far greater fraction of reserves to be extracted from oil fields. In 1980 only 22 percent of
the oil in the average field was recoverable, but with better extraction technology average recovery is now up to 35
percent, effectively increasing URR by more than 50 percent. The results of the growing URR and recovery rate are
striking: in 1972 the “life-index” of global oil reserves, the length of time that known reserves could support the
current rate of production, was 35 years; in 2003, after 31 more years of accelerating oil extraction, the life index
stood at 40 years.26In short, no one knows how much oil is ultimately recoverable from the earth, but there is no
compelling evidence that reserves are running out or that production is near the peak.2

37
NO PEAK OIL - TEMPORARY
No oil shocks – we are just experiencing speculation.

Critics might reply that those examples all come from a time when oil producers had slack production capacity, that
is, when past investment in exploration and oil field development enabled them to pump more oil than consumers
demanded at the preshock price level. At present, those critics fear, the increase in worldwide demand (especially
from China and India) has taken up the slack, so producers could not increase output, even if a disruption were to
create a price spike.75 That criticism is misguided for three reasons. First, data on slack capacity are notoriously
unreliable. Slack production capacity is sometimes reported as a static figure (e.g., 2 mb/d), but any reasonable
measure must report the amount of extra oil that could be brought online in a given period of time and at what cost.
Such details, unfortunately, are closely guarded secrets. Although industry observers can make reasonable estimates
of current production levels—for example, by counting the number and size of the tankers that dock at a given oil
terminal—they cannot tell how full producers’ inventories are or how aggressively the producers are drawing oil out
of underground reservoirs.76And only producers can do the advanced scientific tests to try to determine the
maximum flow rate that a given field can support using current technology. Second, assertions about the lack of
slack oil production capacity are inherently suspect because members of a cartel, and especially large cartel leaders,
should generally maintain slack capacity. The entire purpose of a cartel is to help members produce less than the
maximum amount possible in order to increase price. Furthermore, the enforcement mechanism that (imperfectly)
holds the cartel together is the threat to respond to cheating with additional increases in output.77 The same slack
capacity that cartel members need to keep their partners in line can also be used to respond to a supply disruption.
Finally, the more the United States relies on market mechanisms to mitigate disruptions in the oil industry, the
greater the incentive producers will have to create additional slack capacity. If the odds of supply disruptions
increase, producers will be more willing to pay to maintain additional slack capacity so that they can pump more at
post-disruption high prices. Similarly, large oil companies will maintain larger inventories because they, too, will
want to be positioned to profit from a spike in prices. The result of those profit-driven responses is to create the
slack that will mitigate the disruptions. There is clear evidence that slack capacity and inventory buildup are driven
by expectations of future disruptions. Whenever political crises that could affect oil supply loom on the horizon,
wholesalers fill their stocks, essentially creating slack capacity above the ground that they hope to sell when supply
drops and prices rise.78

38
NO PEAK OIL – RESERVES
No peak oil, we have enormous reserves.

Ebeling, 2008 (Richard M., June 18, American Institute for Economic Research, “The Global Oil Crisis: The Supply
Problem is a Government Problem”)
The recent and continuing surge in gasoline prices has raised concerns and fears about the future of oil-based energy
in the coming years. Are we reaching the end of global petroleum supplies in the face of increasing demand that
supply seems unable to keep up with? In fact, oil reserves around the world are plentiful, and can keep growing
consumption and industrial uses humming for many decades to come. During the ten-year period, 1997-2007, global
production of oil increased by 12.9 percent. Over this same time frame, global oil consumption rose by 15.8 percent,
suggesting that demand is outstripping world oil supply. But oil actually extracted from the earth must be compared
with proven oil reserves that represent the known quantities that remain under the earth’s surface, and serve as the
basis for future years’ production. The table below shows that proven reserves have increased from 1,069.3 billion
barrels of extractable oil in 1997 to 1,237.9 billion barrels in 2007, or a 15.8 percent increase. The knowledge of
proven reserves available for extraction has increased, in other words, at the same percentage rate over the last ten
years as global consumption has gone up. In 2007, global oil consumption was 31.13 billion barrels. At this current
level of consumption, proven reserves in 2007 are sufficient to supply almost 40 years of annual production.
Even if we were to assume that growing demand were to rise to 40 billion barrels a year by 2017 before, perhaps,
leveling off, these proven reserves would still be enough to supply over 30 years of oil production.
But there is every reason to believe that further geological exploration and advances in oil extracting technologies
will assure that even as existing proven reserves are used up to feed current use they will be at least partly if not
completely replenished through new discoveries over the years and decades ahead. This was certainly the case
during the last ten years when world consumption and proven reserves increased at the same rate. (And this
completely sets aside the vast global known reserves of other energy-providing resources such as shale oil and coal,
for example.) The current oil “crisis” therefore has not been caused by the world “running out of oil.” What has
lagged behind global consumption is world-wide extracting and refining of oil into usable energy-supplying forms.

39
NO PEAK OIL – AT: HURTS THE ECONOMY
High oil prices won’t hurt the economy – the current spike is driven by high demand, which is self correcting.
Hasserr, 08 ("Who's Afraid of $100 a Barrel?." Kevin A. - senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at
AEI. ARTICLES National Review Publication. January 28, 2008.
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all%2CpubID.27426/pub_detail.asp)
There is every reason to expect that high energy prices will do far less harm to the U.S. economy than they have in
the past. The reason is apparent in the attached chart. It shows the relative increase in oil demand for many of the
world's countries. For the large developed countries, including the U.S., oil demand has inched up only a smidgen in
recent years. But the world's less-developed nations, especially China and India, have ratcheted up their
consumption year after year. The size of this increase is astonishing, with China, for example, increasing its oil
consumption a whopping 146 percent from 1993 to 2006. Increasing demand puts pressure on supply and drives up
prices just as effectively as a supply disruption. But when supply is disrupted, as it was by war in 1956, it is
unambiguously bad news. When high demand drives up prices, on the other hand, the story is more ambiguous.
Less-developed nations are driving up the price of oil because they are growing so much, but that growth produces
higher incomes, and a swarm of new customers for the products produced by developed nations. We often think that
countries compete the way companies do, but the world doesn't work that way. When the rest of the world is reeling,
our growth is lower and our recessions worse. With oil less and less important to our economy, its high price might
even be good news.
High oil prices will not have a long-term impact on the world economy.
CCTV 08 ("Oil prices not to have big impact on world economy in long term." CCTV. January 3, 2008.
http://www.cctv.com/program/bizchina/20080103/102837.shtml)
Analysts say the high oil prices will continue, but are not likely to have a big impact on the world economy in the
long run. Although the price of crude oil has been rising consistently in recent years, the world economy has
maintained a growth rate of around 5 percent, and international trade has grown at a rate of between 7 to 9 percent.
Analysts say, the impact of oil prices on the world economy is weakening. The main reason is energy-saving
measures and new technology, which are improving the efficiency of energy consumption. The economic growth is
less reliant on high consumption of oil. Secondly, the integration of global economies and technology innovation
have raised production efficiency and reduced costs around the world, which has led to an increase in disposable
incomes. Consumption has therefore remained strong. Another reason is that the world economy is in a phase of
expansion, and macro-economic policies in many countries have been in place to withstand the impact of high oil
prices. However, the International Energy Agency has estimated that until 2030, the demand for crude oil will
increase by 35 percent to 116 million barrels per day and crude oil prices will remain high for the longer term. It will
force the economies to change their growth model, innovate energy-saving technologies, and explore new energy
resources to achieve sustainable development.

40
NO PEAK OIL – AT: CHINA WAR
China’s oil demand will not affect demand or increase U.S.-Sino competition.
Fears about the implications of China’s energy policy are greatly exaggerated. First, on the demand side, China’s
efforts to reach long-term oil purchase agreements will not affect aggregate global demand for oil; the prepurchase
agreements will merely change the patterns of global oil trade (i.e., which specific barrels of oil China consumes)
but not the overall level of consumption. The long-term agreements, therefore, will not significantly affect oil prices.
Second, on the supply side, China’s leap into the oil exploration and extraction business will either be economically
neutral for the United States or, if Chinese investments increase aggregate global supplies, possibly advantageous to
the U.S. economy. China’s soaring demand for energy, and its implication for global oil prices, will adversely affect
the United States and all other oil consumers (just as our consumption of oil also drives up prices). But there is little
to fear from Beijing’s energy policy and no reason for U.S. policymakers to expect, or initiate, the type of
competition with China that analysts envision when they describe an international scramble over the “geopolitics of
oil.” More broadly, U.S. policymakers should make sure that unwarranted fears that energy competition will breed a
Sino-U.S. conflict do not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In reality, no American interest in oil requires hostile
relations with China. Until the mid-1990s, China produced more oil than it consumed; since then, China’s
consumption has greatly outpaced domestic production. China’s economic growth creates a voracious appetite for
oil, especially because much of the manufacturing investment that fuels the Chinese expansion is energy intensive,
and Chinese consumers view personal cars as a symbol of their middle-class status.44 Each unit of Chinese GDP
increase therefore bumps up global energy consumption more than a comparable GDP increase in many other
countries. Many oil analysts believe that Chinese demand accounts for a substantial part of the oil price increase
since 2000.45

41
NO PEAK OIL – AT: CHINA IMPACTS
China won’t withhold oil from the US.

What the pessimistic analyses overlook, however, is that a Chinese decision not to resell the oil China pumps
(whether from foreign concessions or domestic production), despite the opportunity to make big profits, would be
the same thing as China deciding to pay more for oil than other consumers.58In other words, China’s hypothetical
decision not to sell oil to Americans even if world prices rose dramatically (e.g., during a supply disruption) would
cost the Chinese the same amount of money that they could use to outbid Americans in a “free” oil market in which
China had not made long- term deals with suppliers. The point is that China’s current activities, whether or not they
are characterized as mercantilist efforts to lock up oil supplies, make no difference to Americans’ long-run ability to
buy oil in the market. What might hurt American consumers is China’s growing demand for oil, because that
demand drives up prices.

42
NO PEAK OIL – LONG TIME FRAME
Even if we’ve reached peak oil, we have 40 years before we reach a crisis point
The Guardian, 08 (The Guardian, Terry Macalister-industrial corespondent, June 11 2008, "World has enough oil
reserves, say BP boss," http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/11/commodities.bp)
The BP boss was talking at the launch of his company's annual statistical review of world energy which showed that
world oil consumption grew by 1.1% in 2007, or 1m barrels a day, slightly below the 10-year average, while
production fell by 0.2%, or 130,000 barrels a day, the first decline in five years. An increasing number of oil
industry commentators have put forward the view that "peak oil" has now been reached - or shortly will be - and is
responsible for a 40% rise in crude prices this year to record highs of nearly $140 a barrel. BP, though, said today
that proved oil reserves at 1.24tn barrels are enough to meet current production for 41 years.

43
OIL NOT BAD – FOREIGN POLICY REMAINS FLEXIBLE
The US is not dependent on any one oil producer – diversion prevents any producer from using oil as
leverage.
Whether a supplier loves or hates a customer (or vice versa) does not matter because, in the world oil market, a
seller cannot isolate any customer and a buyer cannot isolate any supplier. But conventional wisdom (there is that
term again) is that Middle Eastern nations wield an “oil weapon” that they can use to punish the United States or any
other nation. In support of this belief, many people point to the 1973 “oil embargo” against the United States by
Arab members of OPEC (except Iraq — Saddam Hussein profited by it). Secretary of State Henry Kissinger cruised
around the Middle East many times to negotiate an “end” to it. Ten years later, he explained that the significance of
the “embargo” was psychological, not economic. Recently, the London Economist quoted approvingly what I said in
July 1973: If an embargo was declared, it would have no effect because diversion would nullify it. And so it was.
The embargo against the United States never happened, and could not happen. The miserable, mile-long lines
outside of U.S. gasoline stations resulted from domestic price controls and allocations, not from any embargo. We
ought not blame the Arabs for what we did to ourselves. The Arab and non-Arab cutbacks in output, then and later,
were real though small. If we look at the amounts actually available the United States did a little worse than Japan, a
little better than Western Europe. (I think those differences are accidental results of imperfect statistics, but that is
another story.) The real moral is this: It does not matter how much oil is produced domestically and how much is
imported. Presidents may declare that there is an “urgent need” to cut imports and boost “energy independence” —
no one ever lost political support by seeing evil and blaming foreigners. The facts are less dramatic. Imports do not
make any importer “dependent” on any particular exporter, or even all of them taken together. Therefore, direct or
indirect spending to reduce imports is a waste of resources. Some public support of research into energy may bring
us knowledge worth paying for, but public outlays for energy development are a waste.

44
ANWR SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE
ANWR drilling increases energy security without causing environmental harm.

Lieberman, 06 (Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies
at The Heritage Foundation. “American-Made Energy from ANWR at a Modest Cost” 8-10-06.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1192.cfm)
The frustrating bottom line is that ANWR oil is still off-limits. America remains the only nation on earth that has
restricted access to such a promising domestic petroleum source. In the meantime, oil prices remain high, and
imports increase each year as demand grows faster than existing domestic production from those areas where
drilling is permitted. Notwithstanding the precautionary shutdown of some corroded BP pipelines in Alaska, history
demonstrates that oil production and environmental protection can coexist in Alaska. Since the 1970s, drilling in
nearby Prudhoe Bay has amassed a strong environmental record while providing 15 billion barrels of oil. And
ANWR drilling would be done with much stronger protections and technology that is far more environmentally
friendly than what was available 30 years ago. In addition to providing a million barrels per day at peak production,
ANWR would also provide substantial revenues to the federal government. Oil companies would have to pay rent
for leasing rights, royalties on each barrel produced, and corporate income taxes on their profits. The Congressional
Research Service estimates that, based on current oil prices, over $112 billion in revenues would be accrued by the
federal government, $36 billion from leasing and royalty revenues and $76 billion from tax revenues.[2]

45
ANWR SOLVES OIL DEPENDENCE
ANWR solves energy security and environmental effects are overstated.

Weyrich, 06 (Paul Weyrich, Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation. “Drill ANWR: Realism Over
Emotion” 5-23-06. http://www.aim.org/guest-column/drill-anwr-realism-over-emotion/)
Environmentalists use the shorthand phrase "ANWR" to suggest the entire 19.5 million acre refuge will be
developed for energy. Actually the area at issue covers only 1.5 million acres and it is termed the "10-02 Area" in
reference to the section of the 1980 legislation expanding ANWR -- the Alaskan National Interest Lands
Conservation Act – which designated land for "oil and gas exploration." Only 2,000 acres of the 10-02 Area are to
be used for the permanent infrastructure -- the pipelines, oil wells, etc. The10-02 Area is neither a refuge nor
wilderness and definitely not scenic despite constant claims to the contrary by the Green Lobby. The United States
Geological Survey has estimated ANWR holds a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. This would
be the equivalent of a "Prudhoe Bay II." Murkowski, testifying on behalf of the National Governors Association on
February 10, 2005, told the House Energy and Commerce Committee: "The Coastal Plain of ANWR has been
determined to be the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America, the only area with the
potential to discover an 'elephant' field like Prudhoe Bay. . . . Oil from ANWR represents a secure domestic supply,
which could help fulfill US oil demand for twenty-five years or more. Government studies suggest that the Coastal
Plain could produce a ten year sustained rate of one million barrels per day." Environmentalists underplay the
availability of oil from ANWR. Development of ANWR, according to a letter signed by conservative leaders and
sent to the House and Senate Leadership on March 8, 2006, "would increase proven U.S. crude oil reserves by 50%
and [it] is equivalent to approximately a quarter century of current imports from Saudi Arabia." Getting Congress to pass
ANWR involves a Catch 22. The House generally has supported ANWR on a stand-alone vote but generally shuns it when it is folded into a budget resolution. The Senate has not supported
ANWR on stand-alone votes but will pass it as part of the budget. ANWR supporters are pleased this stand-alone vote will be held even though it remains to be seen if the Senate will take action.
Why? With fuel prices at record highs it will be useful for Americans to know which of their elected representatives want to provide some much-needed relief. Environmentalists wield clout in
both parties, particularly within the Minority Party Caucus. Some Members realize the importance of ANWR as a source of energy. When the House passed the Energy Act of 2005 last spring,
which included ANWR, over 40 Democrats bucked the Green Lobby to vote affirmatively. The pressure will be unrelenting. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace, motivated by preservationist
policies, will continue arm-twisting Congress to prevent ANWR development. The Senate is an even tougher arena for ANWR legislation. Obtaining a roll call vote with prices so high still has
value. Americans will be able to tell which Senators really want to develop energy sources that represent a true "alternative" to Saudi and Venezuelan oil versus those who only talk the talk.
Myron Ebell, Director of Global Warming and Energy Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that if the Federal Government would allow development of offshore and onshore
areas, including ANWR, America could increase our energy supply and lessen our dependence upon foreign sources. Ebell wrote recently on HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE: "Within a few years,
an additional million barrels a day could be flowing to West Coast refineries. And if President Clinton hadn't vetoed ANWR legislation in 1995, that oil would be flowing today." ANWR's
development can help to lessen our dependence on foreign oil; so also would the careful opening of other protected onshore and offshore sites. It's ironic that the Green Lobby, so quick and
vociferous to protest ANWR, has been relatively mute so far in protesting the proposed offshore drilling by Red China off the Cuban Coast. Why is it the Greens avoid discussing the terrible
environmental record amassed by Communist countries? It's worth noting that terrible record has been compounded by Communist failure to provide to their citizens freedom of speech and the
right to petition their legislatures. Certainly, the Green Lobby is free to exercise its First Amendment rights in opposition to drilling but let us see if the Greens are willing to discover how
Dire predictions of environmental disaster
dismissive true Communist dictatorships will be to their concerns. ANWR can mirror the experience with Prudhoe Bay.
advanced by the Green Lobby never came true. Governor Murkowski told the House Energy and Commerce
Committee last year that the previous experience of drilling on the North Slope should assuage the worries of
disaster resurrected by the Greens. He noted: "Oil development is compatible with the protection of wildlife and
their habitat. . . . North Slope caribou herds have remained healthy throughout previous oil development. In fact, the Central Arctic caribou herd, which is located in and around
Prudhoe Bay, has increased 10 fold in the last 20 years." It's time ordinary Americans start playing hardball with politicians who, through their voting record on issues such as ANWR, effectively
sabotage our energy security. If not for the Clinton veto of legislation to open ANWR for exploration we would now be reaping the benefits. Instead our reliance on overseas oil imports remains
dangerously high. ANWR is not a total solution to our long-term energy needs but it has an important role in helping us surmount medium-term needs before new alternative energies or harder-
Getting serious about meeting the energy needs of the United States means getting
to-harvest sources of oil become available.
serious about using the resources of our country. That means developing ANWR. Delaying the use of ANWR means
endangering our country's energy security, thereby imperiling our economic security. The sooner politicians
understand the American people are wising up to the failure of Congress to develop available sources of domestic oil
and gas the better.

46
LINK LCFS: INCREASES NATURAL GAS USE

LCFS will increase demand for natural gas.
In addition to the natural gas demand caused by biofuels, natural gas demand could potentially rise as obligated
parties comply with the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. In order to meet the significant carbon reductions outlined in the
discussion draft, technologies that rely on natural gas would have to be added to the transportation sector. Electric
vehicles using electricity from natural gas, hydrogen vehicles or compressed natural gas powered vehicles would all
increase demand significantly. Domestic petrochemical producers as well as a host of other industries rely on natural
gas as an indispensable part of production. Already, manufacturers in the United States suffer under some of the
world’s highest natural gas prices. The AFP and the LCFS in the discussion draft have the potentially to significantly
worsen this problem.
Alternative fuels will increase demand for natural gas.

One possible unintended consequence of the AFP is the potential increase in the price of natural gas. The production
of ethanol requires significant volumes of natural gas throughout its production cycle. Natural gas is used in ethanol
plants themselves during the production process. Converting corn and, potentially, cellulosic material into a usable
fuel requires energy, and natural gas currently provides much of that necessary energy. Additionally, as farmers
convert crops, or fallow land, into land for corn or soybean production to be used as biofuel feedstocks, significant
additional quantities of fertilizer will be needed. Natural gas serves as the key feedstock fertilizer production. As
natural gas demand rises due to demand from ethanol and fertilizer production, the already tight domestic market
will be pressured further.

47
LINK LCFS: SPENDING

LCFS requires funding for enforcement.
Wisconsin Global Warming Task Force, 2008 (“Low Carbon Fuel Standard Policy Option”
http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/templates/TRAN_low_carbon_fuel_standard_rev1.pdf, 3-5)
Funding will be needed for state implementation. Implementation will require determination of life-cycle carbon
intensity of fuels from well-to-tank or field-to- tank. This will be a complicated endeavor with varied stakeholders
seeking to influence the outcome. These barriers may be reduced by using models or certification systems developed
in other jurisdictions or in cooperation with them.

48
CARBON TAX CP - SOLVENCY

A carbon tax is the best way to reduce economic risks of alternative fuels.
Farrell, 2007, (Alexander E., Energy and Resources Group Director, Testimony to the House Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality, http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.041807.Farrell-testimony.pdf,
April 18)
Because alternative fuels require greater initial capital per unit of production relative to conventional oil, and are
also more expensive in the long run, they are financially risky to investors and may become uneconomical should oil
prices fall, as they have in the past. On the other hand, consumers face the prospect of high and variable fuel prices.
Thus, the key economic risk of the oil transition is how to manage the complementary risks to consumers and
investors. Government policies to mitigate some economic risks may be needed, but they should involve moderate
costs and should also address environmental or strategic risks. And if such policies involve subsidies or payments of
some sort, they should not tax current income or borrow (further) from future generations, they should come from
taxes that serve to solve the problem. Thus, any policy to mitigate the economic risks of alternative fuels should be
paid for by a carbon tax.

49
STATES CP – SOLVE LCFS
States are comparatively better at implementing LCFS.

Litz, 08 (Franz T. Litz, senior fellow at the World Resources Institute and Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
“Toward A Constructive Dialogue On Federal And State Roles In U.S. Climate
Change Policy.” June 2008. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/StateFedRoles.pdf)
A national renewable or low-carbon portfolio standard could be enacted to increase the share of electricity generated
from renewable and other low-carbon energy sources. A national renewable portfolio standard would have the
advantage of driving renewable energy across the country, and not just in states that have adopted their own
renewable energy portfolio standards. A national standard could also provide more flexibility concerning the
location of renewable energy generating facilities: solar and wind installations could be sited in areas best able to
capitalize on these natural resources. As discussed above, however, electric generation resource planning has long
been the province of state governments, with the exception of matters that affect interstate commerce or interstate
resources. A federal renewable portfolio standard would either require a new federal authority and associated
bureaucracy, or it would have to rely on state regulatory bodies for its implementation. A Heavy Federal Role,
therefore, presents the advantages that have been recited for federal action: uniform national application of
requirements; involvement of all states, not just those willing to act on their own; and a level playing field for
businesses operating nationwide. While it maximizes the benefits of federal action, however, the heavy federal
approach does not enable states to do what they do best. In leaving states largely out, the heavy federal scenario
creates significant challenges. Because states would not be devising climate action plans, the opportunities to
identify creative local solutions to problems would be substantially diminished. The federal government would be
less able to address local stakeholders and other interests. Areas that were previously the state’s charge, like
electricity and natural gas delivery, would necessarily come under increasingly federalized control. As in the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy context, states would not be in a position to drive improvements when the federal
government is slow to act.

50
STATES CP – SOLVES MODELING

Federal action is unnecessary- California has created the momentum and other states will follow its model.
Garrahan, 2007 (Matthew, January 23, Financial Times, pg. 13, Comment and Analysis, “Emission Cuts by
California put the heat on Washington”, Proquest)
The signing of Assembly Bill 32 last August committed the most populous state in the US to a 25 per cent reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Then, last week, Mr Schwarzenegger took the first step towards meeting that
goal when he signed an executive order to establish a low-carbon standard for transport fuels sold in California.
According to the Schwarzenegger administration, the standard will over the next 13 years reduce the carbon
intensity of fuels used by passenger vehicles by at least 10 per cent. A market-based trading system will also be
introduced, which will allow fuel providers to buy and sell carbon credits. California has long played a leading role
in environmental politics. The implementation of clean-air regulations in the state in the mid-1970s, for example, led
to a countrywide policy that saw catalytic converters fitted to all new cars. Daniel Yergin, president of Cambridge
Energy Research Associates and an authority on energy politics, says: "What happens in California, given its size
and its influence, reverberates across the nation. It becomes a national event when California does it or when its
governor says it." Other states are likely to follow its lead in introducing climate change laws. Vermont, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Maine and Connecticut have already formed the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which commits the states to forming a carbon trading system and reducing emissions.
Florida, New Mexico, Minnesota and South Carolina are thought to be considering similar moves. The size of the
Californian economy - if it were an independent country, its economy would be the sixth largest in the world -
makes it inevitable that other states will follow it into carbon trading, says Joel Kurtzman, a senior fellow with the
Milken Institute, an economic think-tank. "There is so much industry in California that it could pull the rest of the
country into a carbon trading regime, which would be a de facto way of the US joining the Kyoto protocol." The
administration hopes the standard will encourage greater investment in alternative fuels production and, crucially,
reduce California's dependence on imported oil.

51

California LCFS is being modeled nationally – federal action is not necessary.
State Department 07 ("Schwarzenegger Applauds Florida for Adopting California’s Tailpipe Emissions Standards,
Aggressive Environmental Protection Policies." California State Department. 7/13/2007 http://gov.ca.gov/issue/env-
lcfs/)
As Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to pressure the federal government to approve California’s
application for an auto emissions waiver, he today applauded Republican Florida Governor Charlie Crist for
adopting California’s strict tailpipe emissions standards. Governor Crist signed executive orders to implement
aggressive policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote alternative energy and increase energy efficiency
in Florida, the 4th most populous state in the nation. The Florida Governor also proposed a Low Carbon Fuel
Standard modeled after California’s groundbreaking policy to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels.
“With our numerous similarities, including our scores of citizens who want to protect the environment, California
and Florida are great partners in the fight against climate change. I am very proud to see another governor wanting
to join California and the growing number of states who are not waiting for Washington to lead on this issue,” said
Governor Schwarzenegger. “Today’s action by Governor Crist helps California tremendously as we send a strong
message to the federal government to approve our auto emissions waiver.” “I know Governor Crist intends to
rollback greenhouse gas emissions just as we are doing in California. And he will build great momentum with his
neighboring states just as we have done in California with great partnerships between us and states in the Northeast
and West and with provinces in Canada and with Great Britain.” Governor Schwarzenegger announced the world’s
first Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels that requires fuel providers to reduce the carbon
intensity of transportation fuels sold in California. This first-of-its kind standard firmly establishes sustainable
demand for lower-carbon fuels but without favoring one fuel over another. By 2020 the standard will reduce the
carbon intensity of California's passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent. Besides Florida, eleven other states
that have adopted California's vehicle emissions standards including: Vermont, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Washington and Oregon.
States and countries model California LCFS – federal government not needed.
State Department 07 (California State Department. “California clean air standards a danger to Cdn oil industry”
June 08, 2007. http://money.canoe.ca/News/Other/ 2008/06/08/4243714-ap.html )
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Clean-air agreements signed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and two
Canadian provinces could dramatically slow oil production in the Alberta tar sands. Ontario and British Columbia
have agreed to adhere to California's low-carbon fuel standards, which means the provinces will have to curb oil
production sources that create high amounts of global-warming emissions. The agreements require a 10-per-cent
reduction of greenhouse gas output from gasoline and diesel fuels by 2020. Nine other U.S. northeastern states, plus
Illinois, Quebec and Manitoba are all expected to sign on to California's low-carbon fuel standard, which will shrink
the market for Alberta's oil industry.

52

Modeling is non-unique – and, California proves that states can solve.
State of California, 07 (Press release from the Governor’s Office. “Governor Schwarzenegger Calls for National
Low Carbon Standard for Transportation Fuels” http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/5464/)
Continuing his global leadership to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and lower California's reliance on
foreign oil, today Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, joined by U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), called for a
national Low Carbon Fuel Standard for transportation fuels. “Last month I signed an Executive Order creating the world’s first Low Carbon Fuel
Standard so our vehicles will emit less carbon and bring a healthier future to our children and grandchildren,” said Governor Schwarzenegger. “I told Senator McCain that this will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions more than 13 million tons per year by 2020, which is like taking 3 million cars off the road.” “All of this is great for our environment, our economy and our taxpayers
because the Low Carbon Fuel Standard will more than triple the size of our renewable fuels market in California and put more than 7 million alternative fuel or hybrid vehicles on our roads by
2020 without any new government spending. It’s also great for our national security because we will be less dependent on foreign oil and less vulnerable to price shocks and instability beyond
our borders. “A healthy environment, a growing economy and strong national security are all reasons why we need a Low Carbon Fuel Standard for America.” Prior to the event, Governor
Schwarzenegger briefed Senator McCain on California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard during a helicopter tour of the Los Angeles region which included the 710 Freeway, the (nation’s second
busiest) Port of Long Beach and the proposed site of the new hydrogen power plant run by BP and Edison Mission Group. When this plant comes online in 2011 it will be America’s first to use
hydrogen as its fuel source and pump carbon dioxide into the ground instead of into the atmosphere. The Governor wanted Senator McCain to get a firsthand look at the complex transportation
needs facing California. The tour provided a firsthand look at trains, trucks and cars moving goods, major cargo ships entering port and air cargo moving in and out of the Los Angeles
International Airport and the Long Beach Airport. This web of goods movement contributes to California’s greenhouse gas emissions and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard allows California to meet
Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the Global
its emissions targets while meeting the growing transportation demands on the state.
Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), which establishes the Governor’s historic greenhouse gas emissions goals as
California law. The target - 1990 levels by 2020 - is unmatched in America and has established California as an
international leader in efforts to solve the global climate crisis. The Governor’s goals will also clear almost 150
million metric tons of emissions from California’s skies by 2020, the equivalent to taking more than 32 million
passenger cars off the road for one year. This past January, by Executive Order, Governor Schwarzenegger
established the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), which will reduce the carbon intensity of California's passenger
vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. This first-of-its kind standard supports AB 32 emissions targets as part
of California's overall strategy to fight global warming. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard will also reduce greenhouse
gas emissions by more than 13 million metric tons a year, the equivalent of taking three million cars off the road. A
national Low Carbon Fuel Standard would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and America’s dependence on foreign
oil without requiring new government spending. Like California, the nation is dependent on a single, unstable
energy supply and diversifying our energy supply is critical to national security. California relies on petroleum-based
fuels for 96 percent of our transportation needs while America relies on petroleum for 97 percent. Other countries
are already adopting California’s new standard, increasing the market and benefits. On January 31, 2007, the
European Union announced a new pollution standard for motor fuels that is virtually identical to the Governor’s
executive order. The European Union’s new standard will cut emissions by 500 million metric tons of carbon by
2020—equivalent to the total combined emissions of Spain and Sweden today.

53
States solve modeling – California proves.

Crane and Prusnek, 07 (David Crane, Special Advisor to the Governor for Jobs and Economic Growth in
California. Brian Prusnek, Deputy Cabinet Secretary in California. “The Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protecting Our Economy” 1-8-07. http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-
sheet/5155/)
Transportation accounts for more than 40% of California’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the state
relies on petroleum-based fuels for 96 percent of its transportation needs. Petroleum use contributes to climate
change and dependency on oil leaves workers, businesses and consumers vulnerable to price shocks from an
unstable global energy market. No business should be hostage to a single supplier for its most critical raw materials;
neither should any state or nation. To protect our jobs and wages, clean our air and maintain our way of life, we
must diversify our fuel sources and reduce our reliance on oil. As one of the world's largest energy consumers and
the national leader in energy efficiency, alternative energy and greenhouse gas reduction, California has the
opportunity and ability to diversify its transportation fuel supplies, decrease the greenhouse gases emitted from those
fuels, and establish a sustainable market for cleaner-burning fuels. Accordingly, by Executive Order the Governor
will establish a first-of-its-kind policy to reduce the greenhouse gas impact from California's use of transportation
fuels and in so doing diversify the state's transportation fuels portfolio. Specifically, the Executive Order will
establish: 1. A Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold in California, and 2. An initial
LCFS goal of reducing the carbon intensity of California's passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020.
The LCFS is the world’s first global warming standard for transportation fuels, and as with other groundbreaking
California policies, it may serve as a model for state, federal and international standards. This historic action
will reduce California's reliance on fossil fuels and help the state reach its AB 32 emissions targets.
Their modeling arguments are silly – the plan would just model California, which was already modeling the
UK. No reason why the federal government is uniquely key.
MacLean, 07 (Heather L. MacLean, Associate Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Toronto. “Life Cycle Assessment Implications of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard”
http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2007/LCFS.html)
The California LCFS is one of the first policies that will be based on systematic life cycle assessment (LCA),
following a similar regulation in the United Kingdom. To implement the regulation, the climate change impacts
associated with a large set of different fuel production/vehicle pathways must be investigated though a
comprehensive LCA framework. Lessons learned from the implementation of the LCFS will be key for
stakeholders in many jurisdictions. Proposals to implement LCFS-type regulations are emerging in the U.S. federal
government, several Western U.S. states, Canadian provinces, and in Europe.

54
WINNING WAR ON TERROR NOW
We’re winning the war on terror – Afghanistan and Al Qaeda weakness prove.
The Times Online, June 27, 2008 (Gerard Baker, “Cheer up. We’re winning this War on Terror”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4221376.ece?openComment=true)
If only our political leaders and opinion-formers displayed even a hint of the defiant resilience that carried Marshal
Foch to victory at the Battle of the Marne. But these days timorous defeatism is on the march. In Britain setbacks in
the Afghan war are greeted as harbingers of inevitable defeat. In America, large swaths of the political class
continues to insist Iraq is a lost cause. The consensus in much of the West is that the War on Terror is unwinnable.
And yet the evidence is now overwhelming that on all fronts, despite inevitable losses from time to time, it is we
who are advancing and the enemy who is in retreat. The current mood on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact,
represents a kind of curious inversion of the great French soldier's dictum: “Success against the Taleban. Enemy
giving way in Iraq. Al-Qaeda on the run. Situation dire. Let's retreat!” Since it is remarkable how pervasive this
pessimism is, it's worth recapping what has been achieved in the past few years. Afghanistan has been a signal
success. There has been much focus on the latest counter-offensive by the Taleban in the southeast of the country
and it would be churlish to minimise the ferocity with which the terrorists are fighting, but it would be much more
foolish to understate the scale of the continuing Nato achievement. Establishing a stable government for the whole
nation is painstaking work, years in the making. It might never be completed. But that was not the principal
objective of the war there. Until the US-led invasion in 2001, Afghanistan was the cockpit of ascendant Islamist
terrorism. Consider the bigger picture. Between 1998 and 2005 there were five big terrorist attacks against Western
targets - the bombings of the US embassies in Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, 9/11, and the
Madrid and London bombings in 2004 and 2005. All owed their success either exclusively or largely to
Afghanistan's status as a training and planning base for al-Qaeda. In the past three years there has been no attack on
anything like that scale. Al-Qaeda has been driven into a state of permanent flight. Its ability to train jihadists has
been severely compromised; its financial networks have been ripped apart. Thousands of its activists and enablers
have been killed. It's true that Osama bin Laden's forces have been regrouping in the border areas of Pakistan but
their ability to orchestrate mass terrorism there is severely attenuated. And there are encouraging signs that
Pakistanis are starting to take to the offensive against them.
Terrorism is on the decline – the surge is working

The second great advance in the War on Terror has been in Iraq. There's no need to recapitulate the disasters of the
US-led war from the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 to his execution at the end of 2006. We may never fully
make up for three and a half lost years of hubris and incompetence but in the last 18 months the change has been
startling. The “surge”, despite all the doubts and derision at the time, has been a triumph of US military planning and
execution. Political progress was slower in coming but is now evident too. The Iraqi leadership has shown great
courage and dispatch in extirpating extremists and a growing willingness even to turn on Shia militias. Basra is more
peaceful and safer than it has been since before the British moved in. Despite setbacks such as yesterday's bombings,
the streets of Iraq's cities are calmer and safer than they have been in years. Seventy companies have bid for oil
contracts from the Iraqi Government. There are signs of a real political reconciliation that may reach fruition in the
election later this year.

55
WINNING WAR ON TERROR NOW
Terrorists are losing public support – moderates are turning against them.
The third and perhaps most significant advance of all in the War on Terror is the discrediting of the Islamist creed
and its appeal. This was first of all evident in Iraq, where the head-hacking frenzy of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his
associates so alienated the majority of Muslims that it gave rise to the so-called Sunni Awakening that enabled the
surge to be so effective. But it has spread way beyond Iraq. As Lawrence Wright described in an important piece in
The New Yorker last month, there is growing disgust not just among moderate Muslims but even among other
jihadists at the extremism of the terrorists. Deeply encouraging has been the widespread revulsion in Muslim
communities in Europe - especially in Britain after the 7/7 attacks of three years ago. Some of the biggest
intelligence breakthroughs in the past few years have been achieved from former al-Qaeda supporters who have
turned against the movement. There ought to be no surprise here. It's only their apologists in the Western media
who really failed to see the intrinsic evil of Islamists. Those who have had to live with it have never been in much
doubt about what it represents. Ask the people of Iran. Or those who fled the horrors of Afghanistan under the
Taleban.

56
POLITICS - ENERGY REFORM PARTISAN
There is bipartisan support for energy reform in theory but the details of legislation will cause serious battles.
Johnson 08 ("Low-carbon fuels important to stem transportation sector’s emissions." Senator Tim - member of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Hill. 1/30/08 http://thehill.com/op-eds/low-carbon-fuels-
important-to-stem-transportation-sectors-emissions-2008-01-30.html)
This year, few are predicting much in the way of bipartisan agreement on the thorniest issues of the day. Particularly
in the area of energy policy there could be a temptation for Congress to take a legislative breather, having passed
two comprehensive energy bills in the past three years. Resting on our laurels will not do when the public remains
concerned with high energy costs and the growing recognition that the United States needs to address the effects of
global climate change sooner rather than later. In 2007 Congress put the country on a path to reduce gasoline
demand by passing new fuel efficiency requirements and boosting the amount of renewable fuels blended into the
transportation fuel supply. This year the Senate will consider comprehensive legislation to cap carbon dioxide
emissions. Any successful policy to require emission cuts will need an aggressive research, development and
demonstration component to ensure adequate supplies of energy to keep our economy growing. The good news is
that there is at least one existing technology offering an immediate solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Major lobby groups will fight against ethanol.

The Washington Post 2008 (June 16, Vinod Khosla, “All Biofuels Are Not the Same”)
Unfortunately, biofuels are the target of interested parties' paid campaigns. The Grocery Manufacturers Association,
for example, is waging a multimillion-dollar campaign against ethanol; the American Petroleum Institute is more
concerned about food prices than oil prices. Slogans about how much corn and water are required to produce a
gallon of ethanol are repeated frequently. In fact, a 16-ounce steak takes about the same amount of corn and more
water. Should we ban steaks, too? Similarly, hybrid cars are hyped, but we seldom hear that they reduce carbon
emissions about as much as corn ethanol, and at a cost that is substantially higher than flex-fuel cars.

57
POLITICS – ENERGY REFORM PARTISAN
Energy legislation causes partisan fights

Vickerman, 07 (Michael -Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. "Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch." RENEW
watch. July 27, 2007. http://energybulletin.net/node/32648)
Indeed Congress is institutionally incapable to pass a comprehensive energy bill that attempts to diversify the
nation’s energy resource base and scale back its carbon footprint unless it contains elements that work in the
opposite direction (e.g., gasifying coal and expanding offshore drilling). Further complicating matters is the very
nature of the U.S. Senate itself, a body organized to magnify the power of individual states to block “national
interest” initiatives from changing the status quo. Each state is equally represented in the Senate, no matter how
populous. And Senate tradition grants committee chairpersons enormous deference to bottle up or water down
legislation that might impose unwanted changes on the states they represent. Another Senate tradition, the right of
unlimited debate, is enforced by a rule that expressly allows a minority of senators to thwart the will of the majority.
To shut off debate on a measure, especially one in which powerful economic forces and regional interests are pitted
against each other, bill proponents have to line up not 51 but 60 votes. Under the rule, debate continues even if 59
senators vote in favor of ending it and only one votes against the motion. The energy bill passed by the Senate in
June came tantalizingly close to incorporating a 10-year tax package that would have raised $29 billion, mostly from
oil and gas companies and redirected it toward renewable energy development. The tax package was designed to be
self-supporting; that is, it would not have trigged additional borrowing to underwrite the pro-renewable energy
incentives.
Energy legislation causes partisanship

Vickerman, 07 (Michael -Executive Director of RENEW Wisconsin. "Petroleum and Natural Gas Watch." RENEW
watch. July 27, 2007. http://energybulletin.net/node/32648)
It would take nothing short of a sea change to overcome Congressional inertia and recover the ground lost in the last
25 years or so. But though the prospects for a truly coherent national energy policy are improving -- and the need
has never been greater -- both the citizenry and the current Congress are far too complacent to entertain changes that
might involve belt-tightening and discipline. Given the current political dynamic, it would be unrealistic to expect
this Congress, with its narrow majorities, to be the one that jump-starts the federal government into meaningful
action. Yes, we will see some progress on the energy front this year and next, but they will represent the sum of state
government initiatives undertaken to counter the policy vacuum that persists at the federal level.

58
POLITICS - LCFS PARTISAN
LCFS will incite partisanship.

Whitten, 2007 (Daniel, Platts Inside Energy, Energy Information Literacy Magazine produced by McGraw Hill,
p.4, “House talks on bill expose divisions in Democrats’ views on energy security”)
Earlier in the week, Boucher said he would add to the eventual "energy independence" bill that House leaders
foresee in July a low-carbon fuel standard and provisions encouraging flexible fuel vehicles and E-85
infrastructure. The transportation sections, which will include a target for alternative fuels to be reached by 2017
and possibly revisions to automobile fuel economy standards, are still under development, Boucher told reporters.
The transportation measures would be added to four sections of the planned Boucher bill, which he unveiled
earlier this month. Those sections would improve energy efficiency, upgrade the electricity transmission grid,
encourage biofuels development and correct problems in the Energy Department's loan guarantee program (IE, 21
May, 3). "Those sections may be controversial," the subcommittee's ranking Republican, Representative Dennis
Hastert, said of Boucher's latest fuels and infrastructure ideas. Dingell has aggressively opposed new Corporate
Average Fuel Economy standards, saying it was time for a different type of debate on fuel economy. But several
Democrats, including Allen and Representatives Jay Inslee of Washington and Edward Markey of Massachusetts
all said that CAFE upgrades are needed, a view that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic House leaders
share.

59
POLITICS – CORN ETHANOL UNPOPULAR

Opposition to corn ethanol is gaining in Congress.
Hebert, 2008 (H. Josef, May 7, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p D3, “Rising Food Costs Turn Tide Against Ethanol”)
But now with skyrocketing food costs - even U.S. senators are complaining about seeing shocking prices at the
supermarket - and hunger spreading across the globe, some lawmakers are wondering if they made a mistake. "Our
enthusiasm for corn ethanol deserves a second look. That's all I'm saying, a second look," said Rep. Jane Harman,
D-Calif., at a House hearing Tuesday where the impact of ethanol on soaring food costs was given a wide airing.
The dramatic reversal has stunned ethanol producers and its supporters in Washington as they have seen their
product shift from being an object of praise to one of derision. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of the Senate's
two working farmers and a longtime ethanol booster, said he finds it hard to believe that ethanol could be "clobbered
the way it's being clobbered right now" over the issue of food costs. What does the cost of corn have to do with the
price of wheat or rice, he is telling people. The uproar over ethanol is clearly gaining momentum. Two governors -
Texas and Connecticut - and 26 senators, including the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee John McCain, are
asking the Environmental Protection Agency to cut this year's mandate for 9 billion gallons of corn ethanol in half to
ease, they say, food costs. Robert Meyers, an EPA deputy assistant administrator, told a House hearing Tuesday the
agency will respond to the request as quickly as possible, but doubts anything will be forthcoming for about three
months. There's a regulatory process to follow, he said. But lawmakers, even those who enthusiastically supported
the requirement for refiners to ramp up ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022 from about 7 billion gallons
last year, have begun to have qualms.

60
POLITICS – LCFS BIPARTISAN

Obama and McCain both support LCFS.
Reuters 07 ("Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard" Reuters. June 12, 2007.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1229186820070613)
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-
carbon fuel standard patterned on California's ambitious goals. Obama also called on U.S. automakers to double gas
mileage of cars and trucks over the next two decades. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger who earlier this year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020. "We know that
transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution," the Illinois Senator said at a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles. "And we know there are
fuels available that emit less carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, fuels like biodiesel and ethanol." Schwarzenegger signed a groundbreaking executive order in January mandating the carbon
. John McCain and Schwarzenegger appeared together in Long
dioxide cuts in fuels. In February, Republican presidential candidate Arizona Sen
Beach, California, to say they wanted to expand the California proposals nationwide. Obama's low-carbon fuel
standard would rely on "the market" to decide which fuels would be used by distributors and blenders. Such a
standard would spur business to develop more flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on ethanol and gasoline as well as
help foster growth of plug-in hybrid vehicles, Obama said.
LCFS has bipartisan support.

Renewable Energy Access, 2007 (“Obama introduces national low-carbon fuel standard”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48427, May 9 )
"Expanding the renewable fuels market in the United States will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, revitalize our
agricultural sector, and provide a sustainable means to combat global warming. A homegrown solution to the
international climate crisis lies in America's fields and farms," said Senator Obama. The National Low Carbon Fuel
Standard Act of 2007 introduced by Obama and Harkin on Monday is just one in a growing list of similar bipartisan
legislation.
No matter who wins the presidential election – a LCFS will be adopted.

The National Post, June 06, 2008 (Shaun Polczer, “Canadian oil sure to be American election issue”
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=569322)
"With high oil prices, the energy is back on the political radar in a way that it hasn't been in a long time. The debate
is going to be very real and Canada is going to be a part of it, no question. "No matter who wins the U.S. presidential
election in November, there's a stronger chance the American government will adopt a "low-carbon fuel standard"
that could penalize Canadian oilsands exports to the U.S., said Matt Price, the Alberta-British Columbia project
manager for Environmental Defence Canada. Although he stressed that his group is non-partisan and makes no
endorsement of candidates, Price admitted that environmental groups feel a particular affinity for Obama to
champion environmental causes. "He's introduced into the Senate basically what Arnold (Schwarzenegger) has
proposed in California," he said. However, Price noted that Republican contender John McCain has also expressed
concerns over global warming and America's dependence on fossil fuels. "You could see this come to pass no
matter who wins the White House. "Regardless of whoever wins in November, there will be a major shift in the
status quo," he said.

61
POLITICS – OBAMA SUPPORTS ETHANOL

Obama supports continued corn ethanol production.
Rohter, 2008 (June 24, Larry, International Herald Tribune, “Obama campaign tied to ethanol interests He favors
continued subsidies for corn”, p4)
Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other
politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost
all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters at a time when energy policy is a
point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates. In the heart of the Corn Belt that August
day, Obama argued that embracing ethanol as a substitute for gasoline "ultimately helps our national security,
because right now we're sending billions of dollars to some of the most hostile nations on earth." America's oil
dependence, he added, "makes it more difficult for us to shape a foreign policy that is intelligent and is creating
security for the long term."

62
POLITICS – OBAMA SUPPORTS LCFS
Obama supports LCFS.

Reuters 2007 (June 12, Barack Obama endorses low carbon fuel standard,
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1229186820070613)
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed a federal low-carbon fuel standard patterned
on California's ambitious goals. Obama also called on U.S. automakers to double gas mileage of cars and trucks
over the next two decades. Obama assumed the stance of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who earlier this
year proposed cutting carbon emissions in auto and truck fuels by 5 percent by 2015 and 10 percent by 2020. "We
know that transportation fuels account for a third of America's global warming pollution," the Illinois Senator said at
a press event at a Brentwood gasoline station in Los Angeles. "And we know there are fuels available that emit less
carbon-dioxide into the atmosphere, fuels like biodiesel and ethanol."
Obama will create a national LCFS.

Renewable Energy Access, 2007 (“Obama introduces national low-carbon fuel standard”
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48427, May 9 )
U.S. presidential-hopeful Senator Barack Obama, along with Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, introduced legislation this
week calling for a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard (NLCFS). The bill recognizes the steady growth of the U.S.
renewable fuels market, including corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel as key components in the
fight against global warming. "Expanding the renewable fuels market in the United States will reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, revitalize our agricultural sector, and provide a sustainable means to combat global
warming. A homegrown solution to the international climate crisis lies in America's fields and farms." The proposed
National Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007 would require fuel refiners to reduce the lifecycle greenhouse gas
emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. by 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020.

63
POLITICS - DEMOCRATS SUPPORT LCFS
Democrats support LCFS.

Schmidt, 2007 (Michael, Platts Inside Energy, Platts is a energy information agency owned by McGraw Hill,
“House Dems Talk Up Low Fuels, indicate flex-fuel mandate coming”)
The top Democrats on the House's energy committee last week spoke in favor of turning the widely popular
renewable fuels standard into a low-carbon standard and establishing a single biodiesel specification to encourage
clean diesel vehicles.

64
POLITICS – MCCAIN SUPPORTS LCFS
McCain supports the LCFS.

The Washington Times 2008 (Stephen Dinan, June 20, “McCain oil plan fosters reliance on Middle East; U.S.,
Canadian sources ‘dirty’, Lexis)
Mr. McCain, who just this week praised Canada as a secure source of oil, embraced a national fuel standard plan last
year at a press conference with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mr. McCain has made his support for
environmental issues a major part of his presidential campaign, and uses it as a key issue where he breaks with many
other Republicans. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers responded with the following statement late last
night: "The concept behind California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard is to use less oil in our transportation sector.
Canada joined in to this agreement self-imposing emissions standards on the extracting of their oil resources.
Ultimately, an international cap and trade system will allow us to regularize the system by which countries offset
and reduce their emissions, but in the short term we should look for a cleaner and more efficient way to extra to oil
resources from the tar sands."
McCain is pushing for LCFS.

The Washington Times, June 20, 2008 (Stephen Dinan “McCain oil plan relies on the Middle East”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/)
Sen. John McCain caps his weeklong push for U.S. energy independence with a trip Friday to Canada, but his own
environmental plan discourages use of Canadian oil and drastically increases American reliance on oil from the
Middle East and other potentially unfriendly places. The presumed Republican presidential nominee called last year
to expand California's low carbon fuel standard, which measures the amount of greenhouse gases needed to produce
fuel and punishes use of "dirty" heavy crude oil in favor of conventional light crude or alternative fuels.

65
POLITICS – BIPARTISAN RHETORIC ON LCFS HOLLOW
LCFS endorsements are political rhetoric – they won’t translate into legislation.
The Globe and Mail, June 27, 2008 (Richard Blackwell, “Suncor CEO dismisses Obama ‘rhetoric’”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080627.RSUNCOR27/TPStory/Business)
U.S. proposals that could restrict imports from Canada's oil sands are "political rhetoric" that will fade after the
presidential election is over, the head of one of Canada's biggest petroleum companies said yesterday. Rick George,
chief executive officer of Suncor Energy Inc., told The Globe and Mail that the U.S. election campaign is heating up
a debate that likely won't last after one of the candidates takes power. "I think we're in political rhetoric. ... These
guys will say a lot of things, but then when they get into office, it'll end up they'll do something else," Mr. George
said. "The pragmatic thing is, if they don't buy crude from Canada, where are they going to buy it?" Earlier this
week, Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, endorsed a "low carbon fuel standard" that
could penalize gasoline marketers in the U.S. who rely on the oil sands. Several states were already considering such
a standard. George, who is participating in a campaign by oil sands producers to show they are committed to
reducing environmental damage, said it will be difficult to get the group's message across in the United States during
the presidential campaign. "There's a time for a discussion and a time when you're not going to get heard above the
noise," he said.

66
POLITICS – LCFS POPULAR WITH BUSINESSES

Businesses like the plan – they see it as an alternative to more stringent climate policy.
International Herald Tribune, 6-2 (“Climate Change Clash in U.S. 'A Battle Over the Economics'”
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/1411785/climate_change_clash_in_us_a_battle_over_the_economics/)
Companies that rely on coal to generate power say that allowances should be given out for free so that customers in
the regions where coal is mostly used are not penalized. Coal still accounts for half of U.S. power generation, and
executives, like Rogers of Duke, say these customers should not have to bear the brunt of a climate policy. But not
everyone wants to see allowances doled out for free, especially among power producers that are less dependent on
coal than Duke. Lew Hays, chairman of FPL Group, a Florida power company, says carbon emitters should have to
pay for their emissions. "There is just going to be a giant fight over the free allowances," Hays said. "People are
going to fight like dogs and cats over it." Oil companies are also unhappy with the Senate plan. While the
transportation sector represents around 35 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, oil companies and refiners would be
granted just 4 percent of total allowances. That would force them to make up the difference by buying carbon
credits, which would drive up the price of gasoline and diesel fuels. At a time of sharply rising prices, oil executives
say this is not the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Better, they argue, to raise fuel efficiency requirements or set
up a low-carbon fuel standard.

67
POLITICS – LCFS UNPOPULAR WITH BUSINESSES

LCFS legislation will catalyze opposition from industry.
Wisconsin Global Warming Task Force, 2008 (“Low Carbon Fuel Standard Policy Option”
http://dnr.wi.gov/environmentprotect/gtfgw/templates/TRAN_low_carbon_fuel_standard_rev1.pdf, 3-5)
Barriers to Implementation: Legislation will be required to enact a standard. Opposition may come from producers
and marketers of petroleum-derived transportation fuels. Administrative costs, uncertainty regarding the future price
and availability of credits, and/or production of products meeting the standard are potential barriers. The lack of
certainty regarding low-carbon fuels costs may result in confusion over what variables and cost estimators should be
used.

Neg Fuel Standards

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neg Fuel Standards

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008 LCFS NEG

LCFS NEG INDEX

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

winning war on terror now............................................................................................................................................55

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – OIL SHOCK

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – DATA BURDEN

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – COMPANIES MOVE

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE- EMISSIONS

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE- EMISSIONS

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE- EMISSIONS

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE- EMISSIONS

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – NO INFRASTRUCTURE

Biofuel production will be slow – infrastructure takes too long to develop.

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE– INCREASES FOOD PRICES

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – INNOVATION IMPOSSIBLE

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – OTHER NATIONS OVERWHELM C02

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – MID-EAST OIL

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE – MID-EAST OIL

Ethanol can’t solve oil dependence.

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CELLULOSIC BAD - LONG TIME FRAME

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CELLULOSIC BAD - EMISSIONS

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CELLULOSIC BAD – BIODIVERSITY

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CELLULOSIC BAD – NOT ENOUGH FUEL

Cellulosic ethanol isn’t a viable fuel source.

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CELLULOSIC BAD – DEFORESTATION

Cellolosic ethanol causes deforestation.

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CORN GOOD – AT: FOOD PRICES

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

BIOFUELS DO NOT CAUSE FOOD PRICE HIKES

Biofuels bolster agriculture and lowers prices.

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

BIOFUELS DO NOT CAUSE FOOD PRICE HIKES

Biofuels have almost no impact on food prices.

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

NO IMPACT FOOD PRICES

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CORN CAUSES GM CROPS

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

CORN DECLINING NOW

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

NO PEAK OIL – LESS DEMAND

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt

NO PEAK OIL – MYTH

Peak oil is a myth created by companies to keep prices high.